Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 31st, 2006, Australian Prime Minister John Howard dismisses the report on “The Economics of Climate Change” by former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern as “pure speculation”
,
Fraser, A. 2006. Greenhouse Report Pure Speculation, Says Howard. Canberra Times 1 November
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia had just finally really woken up to climate change in September 2006. John Howard was beset on all sides and trying to fight back. At this point, he was probably still grumpy and resisting the idea of having to set up the Shergold Group Report. And so he took aim at the recently published Stern Review and called it pure speculation.
What we learn is that a) people who are supposed to be responsible stewards of the future can be utter fools and that b) the species doesn’t know how to do concern about its own future. If it did, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Nothing in our cultural evolution in the West, at least the last 300 or 500 years or so has prepared us. And here we are.
What happened next? Although Howard tried to do a pivot to save his skin it didn’t really convince anyone, probably not even himself. He got trolled by a senior ABC journalist on February 7. And he continued to sneer at Stern when Stern paid a flying visit in the first half of 2007. And of course, eventually, after leaving office, John Howard gave a talk to the Global Warming Policy Foundation or whatever it’s called that “one religion was enough.”
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.
Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 25th, 2006, opposition leader David Cameron launches “Can I have the Bill” campaign in London, a few week’s ahead of the Queen’s speech in which the Labour Government announced its Climate Change Bill.
If you go here you can see the Getty images I don’t have a licence for.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that David Cameron had become Conservative Party opposition leader the previous year simply by memorising an eight minute speech and not being David Davis or Ken Clark. One of his key tactics was to “detoxify” the Conservative brand by embracing soft green environmentalism so middle class people wouldn’t be quite as repelled and would feel less guilty about voting the way that they thought would benefit their own economic self interest. And so he’d hugged a husky and so forth. And now, he was trying to outflank the Labour and Liberal Democrats on climate ambition.
We’d seen this before with Chris Puplick and Andrew Peacock in 1989-90 in Australia.
What I think we can learn from this is that these periods of competitive consensus exist. They tend not to last terribly long though.
What happened next Cameron kept banging on about CCS. He had a wind turbine put on his roof to precisely no effect. And in 2008, the Climate Change Act became law. And there was an up of ambition from 60% to 80% emissions reductions by 2050. And of course, we’ve now said that we’re going to go to net zero, except we’re not.
The thing to remember was that very, very few Conservatives voted against the Climate Change Act. But this is because most of them are both obedient and thick and didn’t understand the implications. And even if they did understand the implications, loyalty to your leader is far more important than any particular stand you might want to make.
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.
On Monday October 9, 2006, a group of Australian charities and pressure groups, who’d been working with the CSIRO, released a report “Australia Responds: Helping Our Neighbours Fight Climate Change.” (download here if you like).
“
It called for lots of sensible things, including
Increase Australia’s overseas development assistance (ODA) in line with most other developed nations to 0.5% of GNI by 2009 10, and 0.7% by 2015.
Review Australia’s immigration program in light of the expected impacts of climate change. This review should consider mechanisms to support people displaced by climate change within the region. • Make a strong commitment to support disaster risk reduction, mitigation and preparedness measures within the ODA program.
Adopt a national framework for reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% of 1990 levels by 2050, with an implementation timetable that will provide a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
By the way, something else really important happened on the same day – Anthony Albanese made a statement on how Australia needed to take climate refugees.
You can also read my Open Letter to a Tuvaluan turning 18.
And here is a fourth post (no, nobody has ever told me to shut my damn mouth – why do you ask) tying it together and suggesting some answers to the only question that matters “What is to be done?” It also has links to various organisations trying to help.
The context was the Australian government under Bob Hawke had made noises about accepting climate refugees. Keating ignored the whole issue, and under him the “fuck the world, we’re gonna sell soooo much coal bwahahahaha” strategy got moving. John Howard dialed it up to eleven. Then 12. John Howard belongs in one particular place close to sea-level. That place is The Hague.
From Labour’s “Our Drowning Neighbours” discussion paper
What we learn is that
NGOs can get scientists on board, and work their guts out and it will be a one-day wonder. A political party (especially in Opposition) will piggyback on the work. And the media will very very quickly lose interest, for a variety of structural reasons.
And so it came to pass.
What happened next
The report generated a certain amount of attention.
The low lying nation of Kiribati is just one of our Pacific neighbours facing the real day to day effects of climate change.
Rising sea levels, huge tides and unpredictable winds are already a part of life there. So what do you do when climate change is literally on your doorstep?
Anyway, then the caravan moved on. Peter Garrett, the next climate spokesman after Anthony Albanese, name-checked it in February 2007 at Labor’s little shindig at Parliament House.
But the whole question of accepting climate refugees in the future became, well, somewhat awkward under Julia Gillard. Then along came Tony “Stop the Boats” Abbott and that’s all she wrote.
What happened nextmore generally.
The NGOs kept NGOing.
Meanwhile
The coal exports kept rising.
This had consequences.
The bank balances of Very Important People kept rising.
The donations – official and unofficial – to parties and individuals – kept rising.
Which was all great, obviously , and far more important than the fact that
The emissions kept rising.
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide kept rising.
The seas kept rising.
The whole language of “climate refugees” became a bit awks for the Gillard Government, so was shelved. Everyone moved on.
But the issue did not go away, and then – in November 2023…
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.
Eighteen years ago, on Monday October 9, 2006, the climate spokesman of the Australian Labor Party (then in opposition, and positioning itself to attack Prime Minister John Howard ahead of an election due soon-ish) released a statement with the snappy title
“Labor calls for International Coalition to Accept Climate Change Refugees”
It begins
“It’s in Australia’s national interest that we lead on climate change, not wait decades to act.
While the Minister for Environment accepts Australia “does have a substantial role to play in helping smaller, less-developed countries” that will be devastated by rising sea levels, he fails to show leadership. The Howard Government does not have a strategy to combat climate change and its impact on Pacific countries.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
You should be able to view it on Anthony Albanese’s very own website. It was there as of 0530 Australian Time. If it is no longer there, for some inexplicable reason, well, you can see screenshots and the text are at the foot of this post – Just Scroll On. I’ve even added some hyperlinks and footnotes [in square brackets].
By the way, something else really important happened on the same day – a coalition of human rights and development organisations released a report called “Australia Responds: Helping Our Neighbours Fight Climate Change”. Here’s a post about that.
And here is a fourth post (no, nobody has ever told me to shut my damn mouth – why do you ask) tying it together and suggesting some answers to the only question that matters “What is to be done in solidarity?” It also has links to various organisations trying to help.
The context was that in the late 1980s the Hawke government (Labor, for the younger readers who may not know) was trying to both Care About “The Greenhouse Effect” and also flog a lot more coal (e.g. January 30, 1989). In August 1988 two academics had flagged the possibility of climate refugees and Australia’s responsibilities, at a conference in Sydney. At the July 1989, at the 20th South Pacific Forum, well look at what the Australian Financial Reviewreported
“Both Australia and New Zealand indicated that they and the rest of the world would undoubtably be prepared to take humanitarian action in moving people driven out by rising waters” reported Steve Burrell in an article titled “ENVIRONMENT DOMINATES FORUM” from Tarawa, Kiribati, The Australian Financial Review, 12 July 1989.
The same year English science communicator James Burke had produced a show – shown in Australia called After the Warming. It is – spoiler – about the future of a warming world, in which he included a scenario about climate refugees getting machine-gunned. Watch it on Youtube here. (1)
Then, in late 1991 Hawke lost a Labor Party room spill (there’d been one earlier in the year). The next Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, killed the “greenie nonsense.” A carbon tax was proposed and defeated by big business (1994-5) and then vacuous “voluntary action” was proposed. The Liberal Government of John Howard had been in power from March 1996 and had dialled Keating’s climate vandalism up to 11. And then to 12. By 2006 the Australians were still alongside the USA as the public face of the Venus Lobby, but Labor were beginning to use climate as one of the sticks to beat Howard with.
What we learn is that
Labor in opposition were shameless attention hounds, willing to piggie-back on other people’s intellectual and political work (then again, ‘the game’s the game’).
Labor in opposition were willing to make all sorts of lovely sounding (vague-ish) promises and enough civil society organisations either roll over and squee with delight, or refuse to get their shit together to say “yeah, honey, you don’t make that happen, there’s gonna be serious trouble.”
More generally
Political parties like to be parasites on civil society. They like to take what they want (in this case a chance to get more news for their guff) and don’t really care about the consequences for the wider ecosystem, if they can even see it (mostly they can’t).
For political parties civil society is at best a place to get authenticity, credibility and competent/ambitious personnel from especially when in opposition or facing a new challenge they can’t trot out the usual bullshit with confidence and without reputational risk.
For political parties civil society is at worst (and therefore usually) a bunch of clever and determined people who are agitated and agitating about how, now that you are in government you are not in fact keeping any of the nice (vague) promises you made when in opposition. Poach the smartest, install your own meatpuppets, defund and deride is the main way of dealing with them, alongside some patronising guff about “politics is the art of the possible, you have to govern from the centre” and all the other excuses. Make sure you keep big business sweet, because when pitchfork season comes (and it does, periodically), they are the guys who might send the helicopter to get you out of the palace.
If only somebody had written a short perfect book that ended with this
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
What happened next
Then Labor leader Kim Beazley got knifed by Kevin “I’m from Queensland, I’m here to help” Rudd about six weeks later [Wikipedia]. The shadow climate portfolio went to Peter “in the end the rain comes down” Garrett, who name-checked the “Australia Responds” report (see next post) in February 2007 and then turned his attention to helping funnel enormous sums of taxpayer money to a real climate response, namely Carbon Capture and Storage.
Happy times.
Albo took on other jobs over the years. I don’t quite recall where he is these days, but wherever it is, I am sure he is working day and night to turn the fine words of 2006 into real policy. Oh yes. BUT, in the interests of fairness, alongside all his sterling work to expand coalmines, there was, in fact, in November 2023, an agreement to offer Tuvaluans (280 a year) visas to study and/or work in Australia.
Journalist James Burke reports from the year 2050, where humans and the Earth have survived global warming. Using an innovative device called the “Virtual Reality Generator,” a computer effect that projects different environments on a location, Burke shows various scenarios of global warming and illustrates the potential effects of today’s actions. Burke also addresses the impact of climate change on historical events (and vice versa).
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.
It’s in Australia’s national interest that we lead on climate change, not wait decades to act. [AOY1]
While the Minister for Environment [2] accepts Australia “does have a substantial role to play in helping smaller, less-developed countries” that will be devastated by rising sea levels, he fails to show leadership. The Howard Government does not have a strategy to combat climate change and its impact on Pacific countries.
On today’s AM program [3], Senator Campbell’s limp response was to put off action: “The major impacts, the long-term impacts, of climate change will take many decades to unfold.”
Pacific countries need a plan now, not when they are already under water. [4]
Tuvalu is expected to become uninhabitable within 10 years because of rising sea levels, not in “many decades” as the Minister said. [5]
Pacific countries are increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather events, including contamination of their fresh water supplies.
Labor supports the Kyoto Protocol [6] and has a comprehensive plan to assist Pacific countries threatened by climate change.
Labor’s policy discussion paper, Our Drowning Neighbours, advocates the establishment of an international coalition, led by Australia, to accept climate change refugees from Pacific countries.
The paper recommends the establishment of a Pacific Climate Change Centre to monitor climate change, protect fresh water sources and plan for emergency evacuation where necessary.
Labor welcomes the release of today’s report, Australia Responds: Helping Our Neighbours Fight Climate Change, by a coalition of groups including Oxfam and World Vision.
The report reinforces Labor’s call for urgent action to reduce greenhouse emissions and highlights the need for climate change to also be addressed through the aid budget.
All Our Yesterdays footnotes, from October 2024
[1] Yes, the national interest. Which seems to be always identical to the short-term needs of the fossil fuel industry and its mates, no matter which political party is pretending to hold the reins of power. Not to rain on anyone’s parade (btw, in the end the rain comes down, obliterates the streets of the Blue Sky Town. Just sayin’]
[2] The hapless Senator Campbell. Clive Hamilton is spectacularly rude about him in Scorcher, a book worth reading. Howard replaced Campbell with some guy called Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull urged Honest John to ratify Kyoto (no dice). Turnbull went on to a storied career as a fearless, skilful and highly successful policy entrepreneur on climate, outmanoeuvring the forces of darkness and saving both Australia’s reputation and its physical safety.
[3] Ah, the ABC. Bless. This suggests, btw, that the press release might well have been a brainfart on the day – an ambitious policy wonk suggesting an anodyne statement hooked onto the Australia Responds report would be enough to get some headlines, and punch the bruise that was Howard’s climate dilemma. I could probably find out, maybe. But the game would not be worth the candle.
[4] Thank goodness Albo has worked tirelessly these last 18 years to turn that banal exhortation into shiny reality. (ahahahaha- which stands for All Hail Albanese All Hail Albanese)
[5] Really? And the scientific basis for this headline grabbing claim is? Is? It’s almost as if the ALP doesn’t care about either science or the credibility of environmentalism, if there is a momentary advantage to be had.
This paper investigates how the Kyoto Protocol has framed political discourse and policy development of greenhouse gas mitigation in Australia. We argue that ‘Kyoto’ has created a veil over the climate issue in Australia in a number of ways. Firstly, its symbolic power has distracted attention from actual environmental outcomes while its accounting rules obscure the real level of carbon emissions and structural trends at the nation-state level. Secondly, a public policy tendency to commit to far off emission targets as a compromise to implementing legislation in the short term has also emerged on the back of Kyoto-style targets. Thirdly, Kyoto’s international flexibility mechanisms can lead to the diversion of mitigation investment away from the nation-state implementing carbon legislation. A final concern of the Kyoto approach is how it has shifted focus away from Australia as the world’s largest coal exporter towards China, its primary customer. While we recognise the crucial role aspirational targets and timetables play in capturing the imagination and coordinating action across nations, our central theme is that ‘Kyoto’ has overshadowed the implementation of other policies in Australia. Understanding how ‘Kyoto’ has framed debate and policy is thus crucial to promoting environmentally effective mitigation measures as nation-states move forward from COP15 in Copenhagen to forge a post-Kyoto international agreement. Recent elections in 2009 in Japan and America and developments at COP15 suggest positive scope for international action on climate change. However, the lesson from the 2007 election and subsequent events in Australia is a caution against elevating the symbolism of ‘Kyoto-style’ targets and timetables above the need for implementation of mitigation policies at the nation-state level.
In English? It’s all make-believe. It’s all kayfabe.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 11th, 2006 former Vice-President Al Gore was on a flying visit to Australia. Australian writer Murray Hogarth in his The Third Degree” book claims it as ‘the day’ everything changed (i.e. the climate issue broke through)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that concern/activism about Australia, and its potential vulnerability to permanent and escalating climate change had been building for a while. This was partly because of the Millennium Drought. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth had come out. In April a bunch of businesses – Westpac et al – had had another go at saying that John Howard did not have a monopoly on what business wanted. And then in the summer, well, obviously there’d been the UK Climate Camp, which got some global coverage. There were serious moves afoot in the UNFCCC and it was clear that Bush’s and Howard’s technology focus spoiler organisations were inadequate. And along came Al Gore for a flying visit. And according to Murray Hogarth, in his short book, “The Third Degree” this was the straw that broke the camel’s back and gave Australia its big wave of climate concern.
What we learn is that there will be sort of straw that breaks the camel’s back or a spark that sets off the fire, but it’s usually a long time coming.
What happened next. Labor’s Kevin Rudd surfed the wave to topple Liberal John Howard, and then because Rudd screwed the pooch between 2008 and 2010, his deputy, Julia Gillard had to take over and clean up the mess (which she did, though it didn’t last).
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, June 30th, 2006, the fantasy technology gets an investigation,
Friday 30 June 2006 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation announced an inquiry into the science and application of geosequestration technology in Australia
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that since the Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Industry Council in 1999, geo sequestration in Australia had been in favour. The Coal 21 plan, Coal 21 conferences and so forth. And so, some senators decided it was time to start taking a closer look at what CCS might in fact, be able to achieve if everything went swimmingly.
What we learn is that give them enough time and – bless ‘em – Parliamentarians will start demanding that the right questions are asked.
What happened next? The report was delivered a year later. CCS died in 2010, but has since been revived – it’s too useful a fantasy to stay dead…
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, June 29th, 2004 another Liberal talks nonsense about renewables.
’ Mr Peter McGauran MP, the federal Minister for Agriculture and member for Gippsland, went further in June 2006, saying ‘Wind farms don’t live up to the hype that they’re the environmental saviour and a serious alternative energy source.
ABC, 2006. Pete McGauran says wind farms a fraud. AM Program, 29 June. 2006
(Prest, 2007: 254)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context is that the Howard government was doing its absolute best to suppress the rise of renewables. It had been forced or it had in 1997, chosen to announce a renewables target As part of its, “this is why we won’t sign Kyoto” campaign.
And then it had been forced to eventually create a mandatory renewable energy target that came into effect in April of 2001. By this time, the Howard Government had called a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group, a bunch of fossil fuel majors, asking for their help in suppressing renewables. So this is arguing that there is hype around renewables. But that very accurate critique of hype and unrealistic expectations around a new technology, oddly, never gets applied to carbon capture and storage or god forbid nuclear.
What we learn is that Liberal Party, people call themselves conservative, but they’re not conserving the planet, ecosystems, quality of life for anyone. What they’re conserving is their own position, relative power and importance by cuddling up to the status quo act as they are conserving a poisonous deadly status quo.
What happened next? The investment environment for renewables in Australia became so hostile that Vestas the Danish wind turbine manufacturer, ended up closing its factory in Tasmania/ It would only be from 2012-13 that renewables really took off in Australia, in part, thanks to international factors, but also don’t underestimate ARENA and the CEFC.
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 16th, 2006, The Federal Industry Minister is his inimitable self…
In an Interview with the ABC’s Four Corners in April 2006, the Industry Minister, Senator Ian Macfarlane described State incentive schemes such as VRET as ‘Mickey Mouse schemes.’ (Prest, 2007: 254)
Four Corners 16 April 2007 Earth Wind and Fire
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that that Howard and his pals had been trying to strangle renewables – almost ten years previously they’d been forced to promise a renewables target in the lead up to the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC.
What we learn is that opponents of an action can toggle effortlessly between “it’s too much” and “it’s not enough”. So for example, at various points the Howard regime said, “well, Kyoto wouldn’t make a difference, therefore, we’re not doing it.” And here we see an environment minister Ian MacFarlane calling the renewable energy schemes Mickey Mouse.
It’s the classic somebody accused of killing their parents is convicted and before sentencing says to the judge,”well, in mitigation, I’d like the fact taken into account that I’m an orphan.”
What happened next? MacFarlane was dumped as environment minister and replaced by young thrusting or young-ish thrusting Malcolm Turnbull the following year. In November 2007, the Australian Labour Party formed the government did some things to improve renewables (while epically failing on the big picture).
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 10th, 2006, business groups split on climate action.
New research on global warming has caused a split at the top end of town, writes Deborah Snow.
WESTPAC chief executive David Morgan had an interesting story to tell at an invitation-only breakfast for a handful of journalists in Sydney last week.
The anecdote concerned a recent private conversation with the head of the giant General Electric Company in the US, Jeff Immelt.
“He said to me he was virtually certain that the first action of the next president of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change. And he wasn’t saying that as a casual political comment … he is [allocating] billions of dollars worth of investment in the confidence of that development.”
Snow, D. (2006) Business warms to change The Sydney Morning Herald 10th April , page 10.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified and become international lore, sorry, law. The European Emissions Trading Scheme had come into effect. And the big banks were looking at all the money that might be made from carbon trading, and thinking “we’d like a piece of that.” There was already a failed history of getting a Futures Exchange going or getting Australian Prime Minister John Howard to listen to insurers and banks from like 2003. But it’s always worth another roll of the dice, another go. And that’s what happened here.
What we learn is that a lot of what’s driving their alleged philanthropic efforts is actually about sniffing out new markets, especially if the international environment, for want of a better phrase, is changing.
What happened next, the Westpac thing went nowhere. But it added to the load and in September of the same year, the issue broke through and in November 2006, Howard was forced to create this Shergold Report process to look at emissions trading.
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, February 13th, 2006. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners documentary on “Greenhouse mafia”
You can see a bit of it here
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that a lobbyist, Guy Pearse had written a really interesting PhD thesis. The Millennium drought seemed never-ending, as did Australian Prime Minister John Howard‘s opposition to any climate action unless it was loose and clearly, phoney talk of nuclear as a solution. And so Four Corners, which is a bit like Horizon, was looking to return to an issue that they had covered extensively in the 1990s.
And it latched on to recently published research by Guy Pearse. The program was a crucial weakening of Howard’s legitimacy/hegemony which would be dealt killer blows through the rest of 2006.
What we learn is that academic research can sometimes – if the stars align – make a difference, at least in the agenda-setting phase, possibly, in the implementation phase, who knows?
What happened next
A very good book – “High and Dry” came out the following year, based on (but also extending) Pearse’s PhD. Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister. And you know the rest…
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.
“
