Twenty one years ago, on this day, June 11th, the Australian Conservation Foundation called for deep cuts…
ACF calls for national deep cuts target on greenhouse
Date: 11-Jun-2005
The Australian Conservation Foundation today urged a national commitment to a target of cutting greenhouse pollution by 60% by 2050 and a framework of immediate practical action, following commitments by the NSW Premier to this target and the expansion of gas and renewables to meet electricity needs in that state.
ACF Executive Director, Don Henry, said the NSW target of a 60% cut by 2050 matched that adopted by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and the advice of Australia’s former Chief Scientist, and should offer important common ground for the national working group on climate change established at last week’s COAG.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context for this was that the Australian Conservation Foundation had been aware of CO2 build up since the early 70s, there had been articles in its magazine Habitat. And from 1988 onwards, it had been pushing on carbon dioxide build up as a severe problem. But then under Liberal Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007), it had become impossible to get anything happening, really. All you could do was release reports showing how important carbon dioxide was as a problem and that there were economic steps that could be taken that wouldn’t cause havoc, and these would largely be ignored as this one was.
What I think we can learn is this: is that it really does matter for the speed and rollout of technology, who is making the government decisions and what messages they’re sending everyone else.
What happened next: Well, in 2006 ACF repeated a trick that it and other organisations including the Wentworth group and WWF had tried. They got together with a bunch of businesses and released a joint report. This was in April 2006 and it was kind of the beginning of the end of the silence. John Howard was accumulating wounds and enemies and bleeding credibility, and then later on, in 2006 the issue broke through, and it spelt the end for Howard.
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).
Twenty one years ago, on this day, June 10th, 2005, Phil Cooney resigns as chief of staff of Council on Environmental Quality
Cooney joined the George W. Bush administration when he was appointed chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality. On June 10, 2005, Cooney announced his resignation, two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context for this was that from the mid-late 1970s Exxon had been looking at carbon dioxide build up, and they had formed relationships with people like Wally Broecker, the famed oceanographer. And there’s an entire website called “Exxon Knew” which is where you can download documents released during court cases which show that Exxon’s scientists were warning the executives of the dangers ahead and indeed. Exxon’s predictions of what CO2 concentrations would be and what temperatures would be were remarkably accurate. However, in the mid 1980s Exxon made a conscious choice that they would resist climate action because it would hurt their profits, and so they then funded various climate denialist groups, became a founding member of the Global Climate Coalition, which successfully scuppered climate action between 1989 and 2002.
The specific context was that George W. Bush was in the White House for a second term, and he had won this one fair and square (Well, no, he had swiftboated John Kerry, but he hadn’t needed his supreme court justice mates who’d been appointed by his dad to hand him the election the way they had in 2000). Anyhoos, a scandal had broken because it was obvious that the Council on Environmental Quality, which had been set up in 1970 under Nixon to provide environment advice, was soft-pedalling and watering down warnings from actual scientists. Somebody had leaked it and Cooney had then resigned.
What I think we can learn is this: the assholes try to cover all the bases. They usually succeed.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
References
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
“On 6 December 2005, in a presentation to the American Geophysical Union (AGU), James Hansen stated that, “we are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption” (Hansen, 2005, p. 8). Hansen’s warning helped initiate a tipping point trend in climate change communication that was quickly reflected in public debate. These warnings were front page news by January 2006, with The Washington Post reporting that, “[t]his ‘tipping point’ scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad…” (Eilperin, 2006, p. A01).”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 James Hansen had been getting in trouble with asshole Republican administrations since 1981, when a front page story on the New York Times had led to a research grant already given being withdrawn and people losing their jobs. The George HW Bush administration had also tried to sideline/silence Hansen in the key period 1989-1992. And on and on it went.
The specific context was HW’s dumb son, “Dubya” was nominally President, but you gotta assume a lot of the direction was coming from Dick Cheney. By this time the US was having to contend with the fact that the UN process, which it thought it had rendered pointless by withdrawing from Kyoto negotiations, was “back on track” (it’s all relative) and there would be more fights to come about this.
What I think we can learn from this – Hansen is worth listening to. It’s scary af.
What happened next – Hansen took (enforced) retirement. GISS got slaughtered in 2025. The emissions kept climbing, and the Republicans stopped pretending to be anything other than devastation-bots.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, November 31st, 2005,
On 30 November 2005, Minister Enoksen of Norway and Minister Wicks of the UK agreed to establish a North Sea Basin Task Force, composed of public and private bodies from countries on the rim of the North Sea. Its purpose: to develop common principles for managing and regulating the transport, injection and permanent storage of CO2 in the North Sea sub-seabed. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/oed/pdf_filer/rapporter/north-sea-basin-report-final.pdf
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 North Sea had been an economic bonanza for both countries (only one of which had bothered to set up a sovereign wealth fund).
The specific context was – there was increased interest in CCS, and depleted North Sea oil fields seemed like a good idea…
What I think we can learn from this – we have been hoping for technofixes for a long time.
What happened next – the CCS bubble burst in 2011, and again in 2015, but thanks to astonishing lobbying, it’s back on the agenda, and is getting LOADS of money.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, September 23rd, 2005,
IPCC report on Carbon Capture and Storage 22-24 September 2005
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 from the late 1990s CCS had come onto the radar of policymakers, since if the Kyoto Protocol were to come into force, then rich nations would have to reduce emissions. CCS might, they thought, be a convenient (if not cheap) way of meeting these obligations.
The specific context was that pro-CCS scientists and technologists had lobbied successfully for the IPCC to produce one of its “Special Reports.”
What I think we can learn from this – every new technology, even (especially the Unicorntech) needs big fat reports with hundreds of footnotes to make it seem real and safe.
What happened next – CCS has been through repeated hype cycles. God help us all.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, September 15th, 2005,
Friends of the Earth Australia: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees – “While the Earth has always endured natural climate change variability, we are now facing the possibility of irreversible climate change in the near future. The increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere from industrial processes has enhanced the natural greenhouse effect.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was the issue of climate refugees rocking up in Australia was not new – James Burke had talked about it in his 1989 documentary “After the Warming.”
The specific context was that Friends of the Earth battles on, trying to get people to think about the uncomfortable issues. 2005 was before the ‘great awakening of late 2006-2007’ and it must have seemed pretty futile, but they persisted.
What I think we can learn from this: You have to keep saying the truth. Hardly anyone listens, but wasn’t it ever thus?
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, August 11th, 2005, Bob Brown, a man of undoubted physical and moral courage, said the following in the Australian Senate,
The motion calls on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to explain to the Senate his denial in the Federal Court that global warming exists and that the burning of coal contributes to global warming. He did not do that in his 20-minute speech to the Senate. It was his opportunity. The debate could have been concluded and we could be discussing other things, but he steered totally away from that because there is no way that he can answer his duplicity on the matter. There is no way that he can answer the double standards being exhibited as he tries to do the impossible—firstly, address climate change and, secondly, deny it.
Just yesterday in the Senate, in answer to a dorothy dixer on climate change from Senator Adams, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said:
… climate change is already affecting the climate in Western Australia, with quite significant reductions in rainfall in the south-west affecting farm production. It shows all of us in Australia just how important saving the climate is, just how important addressing climate change is and how important it is not only to mix substantial domestic policies to address this within Australia’s borders but to work steadfastly internationally to ensure that we have policies that work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions …
And
The extraordinary thing about the Australian newspaper’s page 7 story today, headed ‘Canberra in denial over greenhouse’, is that right next to it is an advertisement from Energy Australia. It has a little heading up the top, over a picture of a sprig growing out of a power pole, saying, ‘Nature-friendly power.’ This is one of the nation’s biggest energy providers, from the state—the coal state, if you like—of New South Wales. The first two sentences say:
It’s time to make the switch. Traditional coal-fired electricity produces large amounts of greenhouse gases, which cost our environment dearly.
How can we have everybody agreeing that that is a fact but the minister going into court and denying it? It is Alice in Wonderland; it is a total absurdity. It would be laughable were it not so serious.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was the Greens had formed nationally when it was obvious that it was a waste of time and energy – and opportunity – expecting the Labor Party (social democratic at its very best) to be anything more than a meat puppet for corporate interests, especially extractive ones (forestry, mining etc). They’d finally set up in the early 1990s, and Bob Brown was a key player in this.
The specific context was that Brown was protesting the utter criminal uselessness of the Howard government, which was resolutely trying to avoid doing ANYTHING that would inconvenience its fossil fuel mates.
What I think we can learn from this – Brown has behaved with honour, dignity, intelligence and courage. You can’t say that about many recent Labor sorts (Tom Uren gets a pass, obvs, Moss Cass, and a few others). Gillard on a very generous reading gets a “C+” on climate, which is better than Rudd, Keating etc.
What happened next Brown stuck around and was instrumental in shepherding through the first carbon pricing scheme in Australia in 2011.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, July 30th, 2005, an article about just how much influence the fossil fuel lobby had on Australian energy and climate policy making appeared in the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.
“This week John Howard committed Australia to an American-led climate pact that groups the major greenhouse gas producers and aims to develop technological methods to minimise the detrimental side-effects of using coal to create energy. Today Richard Baker discloses how big industry exercised its influence to torpedo the Kyoto protocols.
“Australia’s former chief climate change official has accused the Federal Government of allowing the fossil fuel, energy and mining industries too much influence over its policies – including its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.
“Gwen Andrews, former chief executive of the Australian Greenhouse Office, told The Age she was never asked to brief Prime Minister John Howard on climate change during her four years in the role, at a time when Mr Howard was deliberating whether to ratify Kyoto.
“This week Australia confirmed its involvement in a US-led Asia-Pacific coalition to tackle climate change which rejects the Kyoto protocol and instead focuses on technology to make fossil fuels cleaner rather than restricting emissions from industry. China, India, South Korea and Japan are also involved.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-big-energy-won-the-climate-battle/2005/07/29/1122144020224.html and
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was the Australian political elite had decided reducing Australian domestic emissions was too much like hard work and would piss off their rich business mates by the early 1990s. Everything since then had been hand-wringing (Labor) or brazen “we don’t give a damn” (Liberal and National Party).
The specific context was the Howard government had set up an “Australian Greenhouse Office” in 1998, but had lacked interest in continuing the pretence, and abolished it – having achieved nothing, which was what Howard wanted – in 2004 or so.
What I think we can learn from this is that it is all kayfabe, all pretend. There are all sorts of pretend organisations, either there to spoil other efforts or give the impression that Something Is Being Done.
What happened next is that the following year, from about September, Howard’s terrible climate record finally began to catch up with him. But Labor were only very very marginally better, and only for a short while. Oh well.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, July 28th, 2005 a bullshit “spoiler organisation” the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) designed to undermine the Kyoto Protocol, which neither Australia nor the US had ratified, was launched.
“The partnership announced itself while tepidly pledging not to undermine the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the treaty to limit global greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto’s supporters clothed their contempt for the new partnership in condescension.
The birth notice of the partnership was a terse statement issued from the White House by US President George W. Bush a few hours before the press conference in Vientiane on July 28, 2005. With paternity clearly established, the US stepped back and allowed Australia’s foreign minister to chair the announcement.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was holed below the waterline before it even left port, thanks to the resistance of the United States to targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations going in the treaty text. The Kyoto Protocol had been an attempt to patch the hole in the hull.
The specific context was that the US had pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto in March 2001, with Australia following in June 2002. But Kyoto had, eventually, become international law in February 2005, thanks to Russia ratifying for a) the shiggles and b) WTO membership (a tacit quid pro quo). So President Bush and Australian Prime Minister little Johnie Howard wanted a “technology-led” spoiler organisation so they could distract from their rampant vandalism, and give possibly worried “conservatives” something to point to, a talking point.
What I think we can learn from this is that there is a massive effort to manage Joe and Jane Publics anxieties. If their glorious leaders are assholes (i.e. all the time), then there has to be some way of not seeing what is obvious. Most of that is supplied by the normal bias in the media, but sometimes a spoiler proposal is called for.
NB Nothing here should be read as an endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, which was criminally inadequate.
What happened next – the AP6 died, and was not mourned. Other spoiler organisations were formed. Grand sounding but just as empty. And 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.
References
Jeffrey Mcgee & Ros Taplin 2006. The Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: A complement or competitor to the Kyoto protocol? Global Change, Peace & Security, Volume 18, 3, 173-192 https://doi.org/10.1080/14781150600960230
Twenty years ago, on this day, June 20th, Charles Keeling (known as Dave) died.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Keeling had first measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for a Californian body funded by oil companies (see the great work of Rebecca John). He’d then done it for Roger Revelle as part of the International Geophysical Year. He spent the rest of his life measuring CO2 and warning people about the implications of the build-up.
What I think we can learn from this – the scientists did their job. The media, the politicians, the “leaders” of social movement organisations? Not so much.
What happened next – the emissions have kept on climbing, of course.
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.
