The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the issue of climate had been moving steadily up the political agenda (with climate and energy policy becoming entwined in the period 2000 to 2009). In 2000 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution had recommended a 60% emissions reduction target by 2050. As public agitation (Climate Camp, Campaign Against Climate Change, Transitions Towns etc) got going, the NGO Friends of the Earth led a civil society charge for a Climate Change Bill. Though they shared the credit with the broader “Stop Climate Chaos” coalition, it was really their victory. At this time there was bipartisan support for action, because opposition leader David Cameron had been using environmental issues to detoxify the Tory brand.
What I think we can learn from this
You can have all the bipartisanship you like. It won’t last, and unless you have social movements and civil society monitoring the promises and putting pressure on the decision makers to make it happen, ‘business as usual’ will re-assert itself.
What happened next
David Cameron became Prime Minister, thanks to the connivance of the Liberal Democrats. And then within a couple of years it was ‘cut the green crap’…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong?
Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 26, 2008, a bunch of self-congratulators met for a mutual back-patting exercise about the wonderful wonderful (checks notes)… White Paper that was coming out. Warning; you will need a sick bag.
2008 Ahead of the release of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper this December, the Centre for Policy Development (CPD) thought there was a need to bring all sectors of the community together to hammer out their differences on climate change policy in an atmosphere of optimism and cooperation.
What better way to do this than through Common Ground?
Common Ground: the event series that brings together people from different worlds, opposing parties or conflicting interest groups and invites them to talk about what they have in common. The CPD’s third Common Ground was held on Wednesday 26 November 2008, with over 150 people joining us at beautiful Customs House in Circular Quay, Sydney to hear Bob Carr (former Premier NSW), Pru Goward (NSW Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Environment) and a panel of diverse voices representing business, religious and minor party perspectives on climate change.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the long-awaited white paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was going to be launched. And so former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr hosted a “Let’s all hold hands and say how wonderful Labor is” event beforehand. As you will know, from reading this, Bob Carr had been aware of climate change as an existential threat since 1971, along with a lot of other people in Australia. [link]
What I think we can learn from this is that people who don’t know better, are willing to be swept up in the frenzy in the “feel good” mutual masturbation, back-slapping circle-jerk whatever you want to call it. It was always going to end the way that it did. Because we have not got a democracy. We’ve got an anocracy. And we’ve got a bunch of huller technocrats who wouldn’t know ecological truth and ecological limits if it bit them on the arse. How do I know this? It is biting on the ass and they still don’t know.
What happened next
The CPRS was a catastrophe. The economist Ross Garnaut nailed it. Rudd failed to get the legislation through, then was too gutless to call a double dissolution election.
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 this day a new business lobby group was founded…
Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) is a coalition of businesses coordinated by Ceres whose primary goal is to call on the U.S. government to pass broad, bi-partisan energy and climate legislation.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by August 2008 it was likely that – whoever was next president – there was going to be a push for climate action because Republican candidate John McCain was not a climate denier. And Barack Obama as a Democrat was going to have to pander to his constituencies (even though Obama had made vague comments about having lots of coal while on the campaign trail).
So, if you know that the next President is going to be more willing to do something on climate then George Bush (which, frankly, is a pretty low bar) then you’re going to want to get a lobby group together that can credibly push the versions of policy that you want, as opposed to what the radical civilization-hating communist Luddite greenies want.
And of course if you’re a specific company under attack for planet-butchering, then membership of such a pressure group can also be used in your adverts when you’re trying to convince consumers that the latest version of the crap that you peddle – that they maybe need but probably merely want – is somehow “green,” and that they’re doing something good for the planet by buying it (spoiler they are almost certainly not).
And so BICEP was born.
What we learn
See above
what happened next
BICEP kept going as far as I know, it’s still going, still doing its thing. Whether it got up on its hind legs, and attacked the Trump administration is another question. Probably played dead.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, October 30, 2008, the top Union body (ACTU) and Australian Conservation Foundation co-launched a report about a putative “Green Gold Rush” of jobs, an argument they’d also been making in the early 1990s.
It was good old-fashioned ecological modernisation and green Keynesianism
AND
On the same day, the Treasury released modelling that had been commissioned to support the wretched “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Treasury modelling establishes that there are benefits to Australia acting early if other countries also adopt carbon pricing but that delaying action may lead to higher long-term costs (source).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
In Australia everyone was talking about the climate, ahead of the long awaited launch of the CPRS White Paper in December.
Eco-modernist green jobs rhetoric was attempting to square the political circle, and at least reds and greens were talking to each other again (it had been rocky).
There was of course a history of this – see “Green Jobs Unit.”
What I think we can learn from this
We do like our stories of harmony and win-win. They soothe us.
What happened next
The White Paper was shonky af (see Ross Garnaut’s op-ed ‘Oiling the Squeaks’). Rudd’s legislation attempts the following year were farcical giveaways. And then it fell apart…
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 28, 2008, a brilliant and too-relevant-for-words animation was unleashed on the world.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was people were indeed waking up and freaking out but not fast enough and in large enough numbers to make a difference. And they couldn’t join groups because they weren’t any decent functioning groups anymore, just various sects and zombie repertoire outfits.
What I think we can learn from this – Leo Murray is insanely talented.
What happened next
The climate movement imploded at the end of 2009 and into 2010. And we still don’t really have a movement, just a bunch of groups, rising and falling, unaware of any of the history, of what is needed. Or aware of what is needed but unable to do it. Because, reasons.
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 15, 2008, Australian business interests were fighting over how hard to squeeze Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and for what….
ELEANOR HALL: The Australian Government knows it’ll be no easy task to design an emissions trading scheme that’ll satisfy both business and the environment lobby.
Business is largely urging caution and warning of job losses if energy guzzling industries aren’t properly compensated.
But not every Australian blue chip company is as conservative.
The Westpac Bank is today urging the Government to keep the scheme it adopts as pure as possible and not to shelter businesses from the impact of putting a price on carbon.
Santow, S. (2008) Split in business ranks on carbon scheme “The World Today – 15th September , 2008” http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2364852.htm
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the Rudd government had made big promises about dealing with climate change which … amounted to introducing an emissions trading scheme. Westpac had had its calculators out about this for years (in April 2006 it had lobbied as part of a business environmentalist roundtable).
What I think we can learn from this is that obviously if there is a trading scheme the banks stand to make a lot of money. It’s also a good way for them to polish their mostly terrible reputation.
What happened next is that Rudd continued to give ground on the policy, weakening it and weakening it more, and more concessions. By the time it got to Parliament for the second attempt at getting it through, in November 2019, it was at best useless, at worst, worse than useless.
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 29, 2008, business supplied the Labor government with the white flag they expected the government to wave.
“Today in the national capital, close to 60 business representatives will meet Resources Minister Martin Ferguson to outline their concerns over the draft ETS outlined by Ms Wong”
Lewis, S. 2008.
“Mr Rudd can’t afford to get this one wrong. The national economy is in a precarious state. Smoke signals send carbon trade talks around in circles. The Advertiser, 29 August, p.19.
See Lewis follow up story the following day!
Lewis, S. 2008. Government wilts as business turns up heat on emissions: Backdown on climate plan. Herald-Sun, 30 August, p.97.
The Rudd Government has given the first sign it will change its controversial emissions trading scheme amid warnings that billions of dollars in investment will be lost offshore.
In the most significant challenge to Labor since the November election, 60 business chiefs yesterday told the Government that big ticket projects would be canned.
And Kevin Rudd was warned his Government risks a repeat of the “GST food fight” as industry and policy makers battle over the shape of a carbon trading scheme.
Executives from a raft of firms — including BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside, Chevron, OneSteel and Alcoa — warned they might be forced to halt investment during a meeting with Resources and Energy Minister, Martin Ferguson.
Other representatives from the cement, paper and pulp, coal and resources sectors also raised concerns during the Canberra summit, which is likely to lead to key changes in the design of the ETS.
In the first potential breakthrough, the head of the Climate Change Department, Martin Parkinson, signalled the Government was prepared to modify its scheme — to prevent a backlash. Mr Parkinson told the meeting in Canberra that the Government was willing to look at changing the formula for how “free” permits were issued.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Kevin Rudd had surfed to power on climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation,” and had started a convoluted policy process which was open to all sorts of special pleading and lobbying, especially in the context of global financial crisis. And this above is an example of business – which was already very practised at presenting a united front even if there wasn’t one – in well lobbying ministers, which in a pluralist system is totally ok, and is absolutely not a display of naked business power at all, you crazed conspiracy theorist you.
What I think we can learn from this is that any policy you try to implement is going to get watered down rather than watered up. This is the sort of thing that Ross Garnaut was talking about when he said that never has so much been given by so many to so few in his December 2008 article “oiling the squeaks.”
What happened next
Rudd’s December 2008 white paper was even more of a giveaway to business. Then in 2009 the process got even more corrupted and watered down. Rudd clearly had a mouth for it but didn’t have the spine to stand up to the vested interests who run the country. By the time he discovered that spine in April May June 2010 it was too late.
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 31, 2008 the “Strategic Review of Australian Government Climate Change Programs” was released:
“The Wilkins Review analyzes current climate change programs to determine whether they are complementary to the CPRS”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Rudd Government had set up the Wilkins Review to “house clean” and to get rid of all the other climate support schemes which were not market-based. And in exchange, we would get an economy-wide carbon price which would by magic, fix all the problems because that’s what these people genuinely believed.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are lots of people who are very smart with all of the right qualifications, who also have no idea how the world really works.
What happened next is Rudd’s wonderful Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme died. Twice. He bottled calling an election in early 2010, Julia Gillard had to clean up his mess and Australia’s emissions are high.
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 3, 2008, Greenpeace occupied Australia’s most polluting coal-fired power plant
“At dawn on July 3, 2008, 27 Greenpeace activists entered the 2,640 megawatts Eraring Power Station site north of Sydney to call for an energy revolution and take direct action to stop coal from being burnt. Twelve protesters shut down and chained themselves to conveyors while others climbed onto the roof to paint ‘Revolution’ and unfurled a banner reading ‘Energy Revolution – Renewables Not Coal’. The action preceded the Australian government’s climate change advisor Professor Ross Garnaut’s delivery of his Draft Climate Change Review on July 4. Police arrested 27.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the new Rudd Government had appointed economist Ross Garnaut to look at climate economics, and was also appointing other panels, there was going to be a lot of green papers and white papers and speeches. What Greenpeace were, quite rightly, saying is, well, if these speeches and policy papers don’t accelerate the closure of coal-fired monstrosities – death factories in James Hansen’s term – then they’re not worth that much.
What I think we can learn from this
It’s so difficult for an NGO, or any set of NGOs really, to be both trying to engage in the finer points of policy and simultaneously making broader societal points. Because if you go out and do the radical stuff, you’ll find yourself uninvited and disinvited to the policy roundtables, or not taken seriously when you make serious points. All the more reason why you need a very broad-based, well-funded, set of organizations within a movement and that that movement has ways of discussing what counts as “selling out,” being caught up to being a fig leaf, and what counts as constructive engagement. And there’s never going to be the final solid answer and there will always be people who disagree.
As of 2022, Eraring is still pumping out its death, but it is scheduled for final closure shortly.
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 388ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Everyone, especially the Europeans, was running around talking about the wonders of CCS, we were in a hype cycle. And some of the people intimately involved, know the dangers. And what will happen if there is an over promising and under-delivering.
What I think we can learn from this
And so the more sane members of a community will try and tamp down exuberance and excessive expectations. And that’s what appears to be happening in this case.
What happened next
CCS got European Union support. But none of the projects got constructed. And here we are in 2023. And it’s still not clear that much CCS is going to happen – watch this space!
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.
