The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in sort of September, 2006 the climate issue had burst back on to the Australian political agenda thanks to the Millennium drought, Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, the Stern Review, etc, There had been a massive “walk against warming”, and the question over as well, what was going to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and would Australia be in it?
By now Kevin Rudd had seized control of the Australian Labor Party from Kim Beasley, and was using climate as one of the sticks to beat John Howard with. So climate was extremely salient, and of course Four Corners, which is the ABCs flagship current affairs program had already tackled climate repeatedly in the 90s. In early 2006 it had broken the story about the “greenhouse mafia.”
What I think we can learn from this is that when you’re on the upswing of an issue attention cycle iI feeds on itself. It’s easy to write more stories. The public’s appetite for more stories has not been sated
What happened next is that climate stayed high on the political agenda for a surprisingly long time. This was because no solution was successfully implemented. Then the minority government of Julia Gillard, between 2010 and 2013 needed to push through carbon pricing legislation (this was exceptionally bloody).
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 20th, 2007, the Canberra Times reports on the gas industry’s lobbying efforts around the recently-returned issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions…
If you’re a federal politician expect a call in election year from Belinda Robinson, chief executive of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association.
Dutt,K. 2007. Pushing case for gas in changing climate. Canberra Times, 19 February.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that climate change had burst (back) onto the public policy scene in Australia in, say, September of 2006. Prime Minister John Howard had been so spooked that he’d had to appoint the a civil servant, Peter Shergold to chair a committee to write a report about emissions trading schemes. Fossil fuel interests realized that climate was back on the agenda, and the gas lobby was pushing there “we are more efficient line.” Inevitably,
What I think we can learn from this is that the gas lobby will do this regardless of the fugitive emissions and the life cycle analysis and all the rest of it that shows that gas really isn’t that much “cleaner” ie less polluting than coal. I.e. they are throwing coal under the bus.
What happened next
Well, eventually APPEA, decided to take the word petroleum out of its name, as so many other outfits have, like Statoil, for example. And you can read more about appear in Royce Kurmelov’s book Slick.
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.
Nineteen years ago, on this day, February 10th, 2006,
COAG meeting a chance for real progress on climate change
Date: 9-Feb-2006
The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged Commonwealth, State and Territory leaders to use tomorrow’s Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting in Canberra to craft a consistent, national approach to climate change.
“A global problem requires a global solution,” said ACF Executive Director Don Henry. “It’s vital we get Commonwealth, State and Territory leaders pulling in the same direction on this.”
“It’s good to see COAG talking about climate change. They can make some real progress on measures that will make a difference.”
[COAG Working group had been set up previous late may/early June, according to this – “ACF calls for national deep cuts target on greenhouse”-11-Jun-2005]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that climate change still had not quite broken through in public awareness, not for want of trying by Australian Conservation Foundation and others, and what we see is ACS trying to work with the state governments, most of which at this point were labor and one. To use climate as a stick to beat John Howard with. And ACF, if it has an affinity, it is with Labor. They’re probably less so now,
What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs have to try and try and try and they will not get what they want.
What happened next
by the end of the year the ACF, sorry, the climate issue was on the agenda thanks to Millennium drought, Al Gore, Lord Stern, and this was exemplified by the huge walk against warming that year, September of thereabouts.
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, January 25th, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard tries to explain away his late-2006 U-turn.
“I regard myself as a climate change realist. That means looking at the evidence as it emerges and responding with policies that preserve Australia’s competitiveness and play to her strengths.” John Howard, Address to the National press Club, 25 January 2007
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that a few months earlier John Howard had been forced to begin to pretend that he cared about the possibility of climate change from carbon dioxide build up. This was because of a whole sequence of events, including the ongoing Millennium drought, the release of Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and The Stern Review into the economics of climate change by Her Majesty’s Treasury. And so Howard had created the Shergold Group to look into the possibility of an emissions trading scheme. And this was, of course, stacked with the usual suspects and left out people who might have different, stronger opinions. But Howard wasn’t really convincing anyone. And so Howard was using words like “realism” in his National Press Club speech. And anyone who knows or has been around for any length of time knows that “realism” and “realistic” are code words that people use trying to frame themselves as the “sensible center” and their opponents as either wild eyed fanatics or dreamers.
What I think we can learn from this is that politicians will always try and do U-turns if cornered. Of course they will, but these may not work.
What happened next Howard became only the second Australian Prime Minister to lose his own seat at a Federal election. In November of 2007 the world got Kevin, “I’m from Queensland, and here to help” Rudd, who said he was going to sort out the climate issue. And he did as much on that as he did on the wheat to Iraq scandal and many others- that is to say, fuck 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.
Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 15th, 2007 Bali COP closed with “Road Map to Copenhagen”… We were finally going to take it Seriously and come up with an all-singing, all-dancing successor to Kyoto, only better. Oh yes.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the UNFCCC process had been dealt severe blows in 2001 when newly-selected President Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, or rather the people pulling the strings on the meat puppet called George W. Bush had him pull out. The following year, Australia pulled out, to no one’s surprise. And it looked like the whole idea of the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC might just fall apart. It didn’t because the Russians ratified it as a quid pro quo for membership of the World Trade Organisation. And so in 2005 the Kyoto Protocol had become a thing. And then it became a question of what’s going to replace it? And there was back and forth and back and forth, as there always is. And then in 2007, everyone went to Bali, with the idea that they were going to produce a “Roadmap to Copenhagen”. And at Copenhagen, they would sign an all singing, all dancing, replacement, or extension, whatever you want to call it, of Kyoto. And so on this day in 2007, the Bali meeting ended with a fair amount of optimism. It was the same year after all, that the IPCC fourth assessment report had come out. Al Gore and the IPCC had won a Nobel Prize. It was a great time for Bert Bolin and William Kellogg to die (as they did), because, frankly, it looked like everything was going to be okay. Or at least manageable.
What we learn is that the UNFCCC has been through these processes before. There’s been ups and downs and it’s all part of the soap opera.
What happened next? Well, Copenhagen was a joke. And the pieces of crockery had to be glued back together again. They were and everyone went to Paris. And history repeats itself. We’ve been through tragedy and farce, I don’t really know where we are now.
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, September 29th, 2007, a nuclear power plant goes kaboom, but in an okay way.
Calder Hall, the world’s first commercial nuclear power station, is demolished in a controlled explosion
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that nuclear power was gonna signal a renaissance for British industry, global industry. It had been a very expensive nightmare, but had given us supply chains for nuclear weapons and the technology and the workforce to keep those going. So that’s the most important thing; keeping the UK seat on the Security Council as a nuclear power.
What do we learn? Is that all good things come to an end and so does Calder Hall. Compare the end of Concorde in 2003…
What happened next? Well, this was 2007. This was in the midst of yet another attempt to go nuclear. By this time Blair had been successfully lobbied. And here we go, planning to spend yet more money on nuclear energy and it’s not going to work.
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, September 28th, 2007, George Bush showed what he was capable of. Again,
28 September 2007 Bush speech
We’ve identified a problem, let’s go solve it together. We will harness the power of technology. There is a way forward that will enable us to grow our economies and protect the environment, and that’s called technology. We’ll meet our energy needs. We’ll be good stewards of this environment. Achieving these goals will require a sustained effort over many decades. This problem isn’t going to be solved overnight. (Bush 2007)
(Scrase and Smith, 2009:707-8).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Bali meeting of the UNFCCC was impending. And there was a lot of pressure about getting a “Roadmap to Copenhagen.” On adaptation mitigation, technology transfer, a deal would be stuck at Copenhagen that was going to Save The World. And Bush had spent his time as president as a meat puppet for Dick Cheney and the oil companies. He was not in favour of any meaningful action on climate change because it might constrain his fossil fuel buddies. And so, when you can’t do full on denial what other fallbacks do you have other than a bit of lukewarm-ism, (“it’s not as bad as the hysterical activists are saying”) and of course, our old friend technology; technology will save the day.
What we learn is that technology will not save the day. It’s one of the most reliable instruments for the opponents of meaningful climate action.
What happened next? Bush stopped giving much of a shit about anything. And there is the famous so long from the world’s biggest polluter comment at the G7 meeting the following year.
The Bali COP did start the gun on negotiations. And Copenhagen was a complete failure. Pretty much a complete failure. And Bush? Bush was just an asshole.
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
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had spent 10 years being a complete douche on many issues, including climate change. Now, there was a federal election pending and he had released some ridiculous television adverts. A then new and exciting-ish group called Get Up dd spoof adverts. It’s easy to look powerful when kicking a man when he’s down. What’s more interesting with Get Up is how its model has fallen over since 2019. But there you have it.
What we learn is that satire could look powerful against a weak and wounded politician. When they’re in their pomp, it seems to bounce off. Maybe it does, maybe it suddenly undermines them. There’s that line in Somerset Morton’s Then and Now (an account of an ageing Machiavelli), where people can survive any hatred but they can’t survive mockery.
What happened next Howard not only lost government, but he lost his own seat as an MP. First time in 70 years. Labor’s Kevin Rudd became prime minister and screwed the pooch on many things, especially climate change.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the year before the Senate had called for a report about CCS and Australia. This was in the broader context of CCS being pushed by Howard since about 2004 (earlier if you count the PMSEIC stuff).
What we learn is that these sorts of investigations throw up reports of varying quality and usefulness.
What happened next? The CCS bandwagon kept going for a couple of years before it finally the wheels came off in late 2010.
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, May 30th, 2007, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said he’d take climate action, oh yes.
“The Labor Party, led by Kevin Rudd, promised a more progressive approach. It pledged to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, establish a target of reducing Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050 and create an emissions trading scheme by 2010.” Macintosh, 2008 Page 52
K. Rudd An Action Agenda for Climate Change, Annual Fraser Lecture, Belconnen Labor Club, Canberra, 30 May 2007 (Australian Labor Party, Canberra: 2007).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Rudd had been using climate change as a stick to beat John Howard with, very successfully and this was another punishment beating that he issued with great success. Sadly, because he raised expectations of morality, decency, seriousness, and then dashed them.
What we learn is that talk is very cheap. And seductive if you’re sick of the current vandal.
What happened next
Rudd became Prime Minister, then fannied about rather than getting the job done. And crashed his chance to be a Labor leader for the ages. 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.
