Categories
Activism Australia Energy

Rallying the troops – the “Stop Santos” rally April 16, 2026.

Around 150 people gathered outside the Adelaide Convention Centre to ‘welcome’ delegates to the Annual General Meeting of the oil and gas company Santos. Marc Hudson investigates.

The Adelaide Convention Centre sits on North Terrace. The only thing between it and the South Australian parliament is a railway station. I mention this because in September 1977 there was an election for the right to sit in that parliament. During that election questions of mining, and energy, were high on the agenda.

One party – we will come back to which – had the following as its policy statement on this.

Fast-forward 49 years and Santos, (an acronym for South Australia and Northern Territory Oil Search) the oil and gas company that some say has a disproportionate influence on South Australia’s politics, is holding its Annual General Meeting.  Around 200 people gathered for a protest rally organised by a group of environmental and social justice organisations including the Australian Conservation Foundation, Action Aid and the Conservation Council of South Australia.

Under the watchful (and occasionally baleful) eye of plentiful South Australian police, delegates and protestors shared the same escalator up to the entrance of the convention centre. 

Four protestors, in mock business suits, were on the pavement at the foot of the escalator.

All held signs and one, Ian, from Extinction Rebellion, chomped on a cigar. He explained the purpose of the protest –

“We’re here because Santos is the biggest company in South Australia. They’re having their AGM today. The shareholders will be here, and they are running programmes, projects around the country and overseas that are impacting the environment, that are impacting and overriding the rights of indigenous people. If anybody stands in front of them, they will take them to court. They’ve constantly taken indigenous people to court, and they keep appealing any decisions they lose. So we’re here to call them out. We’re here to support the First Nations people, but we’re also letting the public know that we believe Santos pays no tax. Hasn’t paid business tax for last 10 years. They pay very little money in donations to the government, and they always get what they want from government.”

(full interview transcript at the foot of this post]

Up the escalator, on the plaza outside the entrance the Convention Centre (the inevitable vast panes of glass – the banal calling card of global corporate architecture), thronged various people with placards and t-shirts bearing blunt messages (not all of them entirely safe for work). Various TV and print journalists scurried around, with police ‘liaison’ officers mingling too.  (See InDaily’s report here).

There was a brief welcome to country, delivered first in a First Nations language and then in English – “Because we all family, right? Yeah, happy together. I’m strong like the ground, like the country, and we’re soft like water too. So I bring you all here in the spirit of humanity. That’s my mom’s words.”

The speeches  at the rally were necessarily brief, (and there was a telling absence from the line-up, of which more later).

The MC (who did well!) was at pains to get all those present to be aware of – and repeat out loud, twice – the fact that the speakers from today’s rally would be at an event – No New Gas! Q&A with Frontline Traditional Owners and Adam Bandt – Conservation Council SA – tomorrow (Friday 17th April) at the Lion Arts Factory, 68 North Terrace, from 5.00pm, where more detail would be delivered, and more ways to be involved in the various campaigns.

Adam Bandt, formerly a member of parliament for the Australian Greens, and now CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, kept his remarks brief. Gas, he said, is as dirty as coal (this in response to the messaging – pushed by Santos and many others, that gas is somehow a ‘transition’ fuel). He said that gas was driving the climate crisis and pointed (as did a later speaker) to the algal bloom that is wreaking havoc on the wildlife in the oceans of South Australia (and on the livelihoods of those who rely on fishing, tourism etc). Bandt pointed to the hotter summers and ever more sever heatwaves, to waters sources being under threat.  He concluded his remarks by saying that Australia has solar and wind sources that are the envy of other nations, that governments don’t go to war over solar and wind and that Australia should be aiming for energy independence. He also, – and this will not have endeared him to the delegates – proposed healthy taxation of Santos’s profits.

Adam Bandt

Next up was Uncle Jack Green, of the Northern Territory, where he and his kin have been confronting the Mcarthur River Mine.  His comments were brief, but compelling. He reminded those present that the mines threaten the water, and that “we live on that water – doesn’t matter who you are, cattle, human, kangaroo.”

The next speaker was Kara Kinchella (sp?), whom I believe (will correct if wrong) of the Gomeroi traditional owners from New South Wales. A coalition of groups, made up of  Gomeroi Traditional Owners, NSW Farmers, the Country Women’s Association of NSW, Unions NSW and the Lock the Gate Alliance, have created the Breeza Declaration. (can’t find online, but this is the closest I got)

Her takeaway message – “we need to get angry, before it’s too late.”

The penultimate speaker (it was clear that the event had started late, and the rally would therefore be somewhat truncated)  was Joseph, from Papua New Guinea, where both Santos and the French company Total have operations. Total has managed to get permission – and here Jospeh quoted from a newspaper article ‘to discharge waste into the environment’. As he pointed out, the waste kills the fish, the prawns and poisons the land – this is a human rights abuse issue. He got a full-throated cheer from the crowd for his suggestion that “if it’s safe, take all the waste and dump it in Paris, at the Eiffel Tower.”  He closed saying “Santos, you are responsible, don’t do this.”

There was a short break for a group photo, and to send the various delegates into the AGM to ask their questions. The final speaker was Kirsty Bevan, of the Conservation Council of South Australia. 

She said she is often asked “why South Australia?” (with, I think, the implication in the question being that SA is a backwater and people here have the luxury of thinking that nothing they do matters) She said that she always replies that Santos has its HQ here, but also, beyond this, there problem is not one for the future but rather one of the

“crises that we’re seeing play out in front of us. It’s not a future problem, it’s a now problem, and we’re seeing extreme weather events. Our surface water temperatures in the ocean have risen by 2.5 degrees, well above the normal, which is what has resulted in the algal bloom, which we’re entering our second year.” (you can read the full transcript at the foot of this post.)

Earlier I alluded to a missing speaker.  So, who was absent from the line-up?  Well, this is NOT a criticism of the organisers, merely a reflection of the reality we live in – where were the union figures willing and able to speak out on the dangers of continued extraction of oil, coal and gas?  There have always been tensions – sometimes managed well, sometimes not – between organised labour and environmental movements. There have been Green Bans, environmentally-inspired pushes for Full Employment, dreams of a “Green Gold Rush” around “green jobs” and climate jobs” (something Australian Conservation Foundation pushed in the early 1990s and late 2000s respectively – the second time with the peak body for Australian Trades Unions).  But today, for whatever reason, no union rep was to be heard.

In 1977 Australia was in the midst of a debate about uranium mining and the export of uranium to countries with nuclear reactors. There was then (as there is now) talk of nuclear power for Australia. Which party had that manifesto commitment? It wasn’t the Greens – they would not exist until the early 1990s, brought into existence from one-betrayal-too-many from the Australian Labor Party. It wasn’t Labor. It wasn’t the Liberals (though there were Liberal figures pushing for renewables research and development.) Reader, it was the National Country Party, now known as the Nationals.

In 1977 the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at roughly 333 parts per million.  Carbon dioxide traps heat on the earth’s surface. The more there is in the air, the more heat is trapped. Today, in 2026, the CO2 levels are at almost 100ppm above that –  430ppm. They are climbing faster and faster each year. More heat is trapped. More consequences for our past inaction – stretching back long before 1977 – pile up for present and future generations.

My two cents:  There really is only so much you can do to innovate with the format of a rally like this, especially when time is tight. Tomorrow afternoon, at the Lion Arts Theatre, it will be easier to see if there is the kind of innovation in how activists hold events that is desperately required.  Watch this space.

Further reading

Adelaide University considers dropping Santos name – News | InDaily, Inside South Australia

Royce Kurmelovs Slick Australia’s toxic relationship with Big Oil k

Transcript of interview with Extinction Rebellion person.

Marc – It’s 16th of April, 2026, I’m outside the Convention Centre. I’m talking to two men in business suits “representing” Santos. One of them has a cigar, as per photo. You’re from extinction rebellion. Why are you here today?

Ian – We’re here because Santos is the biggest company in South Australia. They’re having their AGM today. The shareholders will be here, and they are running programmes, projects around the country and overseas that are impacting the environment, that are impacting and overriding the rights of indigenous people. If anybody stands in front of them, they will take them to court. They’ve constantly taken indigenous people to court, and they keep appealing any decisions they lose. So we’re here to call them out. We’re here to support the First Nations people, but we’re also letting the public know that we believe Santos pays no tax. Hasn’t paid business tax for last 10 years. They pay very little money in donations to the government, and they always get what they want from government.

Marc – And what next for after today? How does the campaign against what Santos is doing continue?

Ian – Okay, in May, we have the Australian Energy Producers conference here in Adelaide that is the lobby group for the oil and gas industry in Australia. All the CEOs will be here, and government ministers will be here. They’ll be here for four days. So we’ll be here to disrupt them.

Marc – I seem to recall, at the last AEP meeting in Adelaide two or three years ago, there were protests that ended up with the Malinauskus government changing the laws. Any comment?

Ian -We’ll do whatever we have to do. We’ll keep doing it because they are not changing. The government is going down the path that Santos tells them to go down, and we’ll keep resisting.

Transcript of rest of Kirsty Bevan speech

It is so important that South Australians stand up and declare that we are not responsible for the climate crisis. As individuals, there are organisations and there are companies who are contributing every day to an accelerated changing climate, whether they’re digging that gas out of the ground which releases greenhouse gases, whether they’re burning it to turn it into liquid gas to export it overseas, they are releasing greenhouse gases which are all contributing to the climate crisis. This part is not under question.

So what do we do? We get them to pay, not the South Australian public. We get them to play for the crisis that’s resulting and our algal bloom, which the report we did at the Conservation Council, we submitted a report that showed that in the first 12 months conservatively, the economic impact of the bloom was around 250 million that’s a quarter of a billion dollars. And who bears the cost of that? We do.

Our role here in South Australia is so important, and we need two fronts at the federal level. We need to show that we are united and that they have a strong voice, that the federal government needs to stop any future expansions of gas and in South Australia, we need to make a firm stand to say that Santos is not a household name. We need to stop promoting Santos at our climate friendly events like the Tour Down Under. We need to stop promoting Santos in our universities and on public land, and we need to stand together to show that we won’t stand for it.

And the government needs to make a change. You can all join up to the Conservation Council’s programme. There’s some people around with their placards out, their hands up, come sign your name, be a part. Showing up to these events is what makes it really matter. But we will continue to hold the government to account. And I thank every single person here today for coming out. Thank you”

Categories
Australia

June 23, 1989 – Richo gonna save the world…

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1989, Graham Richardson, Federal Environment Minister, says some accurate things….

THE Federal Government is considering changes to cut Australia’s excessive energy consumption, according to Federal Environment Minister Senator Graham Richardson.

Everything from power stations to cars would be targeted to produce sizeable drops in energy use, he said in an interview in Adelaide on Friday after an ALP fund-raising dinner.

Senator Richardson said Australia produced some of the highest per capita levels of carbon dioxide in the world, while our economy ranked among the most energy intensive in the world.

In 1984, Australia ranked 13th in the world in per capita consumption of commercially traded fuels-a figure which Senator Richardson said was very high.

Australia had a long way to go to match other nations in cutting waste and using energy more efficiently, he said. 

Jones, B. 1989. Govt aiming to cut fuel usage. Sun Herald, 25 June, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Richardson was ‘switched on’ to eco issues. And there was an election coming, one that was going to be very very tight…

What I think we can learn from this is that when they feel they might lose office, politicians may be willing/able to think a little outside the box

What happened next is that Richardson moved on from the Environment portfolio after the March 1990 election.  By late 1991 the “green” moment had passed. The ALP never spoke the truth in quite this way again…

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.

Also on this day: 

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

December 21, 1992 – Keating in Adelaide

Thirty two years ago, on this day, December 21st, 1992, Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating went to the provinces…

“Adopting clean production methods which minimise waste and pollution and maximise efficient use and recycling of resources is essential to the success of our manufacturing industry. The market is there for cleaner industries and cleaner products. It is also there for environmental management systems and technologies. Australians are developing those things. The drive for environmentally friendly industries and the protection of our natural environment is, in short, part of the economic drive, part of the international competitive drive in which Australia is engaged.” (Paul Keating: Statement on the Environment 21 December 1992) 

Also – The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, will announce today the ratification of two international treaties that will extend Federal Government powers over the environment.

Garran, R. 1992. Keating to flag new environmental leap. Australian Financial Review, December.21

And 

The Prime Minister’s Environment Statement, released in Adelaide on December 21, last year, was weighted heavily towards water and air quality.

It was noticeable for its lack of any of the most contentious of the pressing environmental problems, such as the setting of firm greenhouse-gas reduction targets; any attempt to implement the recommendations of the ecologically sustainable development working groups; the introduction of effective national endangered species legislation – to name just some. 

Toyne, P. 1993. Environment forgotten in the race to the Lodge. Canberra Times, March 8 p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Keating had come to power exactly a year previously. He had inherited an Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process, which neither he nor the federal bureaucrats were at all fond of.

Keating had not gone to the Rio Earth Summit, the only one of the OECD leaders not to do so.

The bureaucrats had spent a year shoving it into 17 committees and just generally killing it off (though they were too blatant and caused a bit of a storm…See August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats)

There had been a National Greenhouse Response Strategy released a couple of weeks before early December

This was him, probably through gritted teeth, having to talk about stupid green issues. And as Toyne said, it was silent on the all-important question of greenhouse targets.

What we learn is that in the same way that in nature, you’ll find the cubs and babies of another father getting unceremonious killed by the new father (and this being genetically the smart thing to do) you’ll find policies – good, bad and indifferent – that were put forward by the previous person, whether they’re in your party or on the opposition party, unceremoniously wiped out and that’s what happened here. Though you can overgeneralise this, it was simply that Keating was in thrall to the neolibs, who had hated and still hated environmentalist issues which they regard as silly green irrelevant externalities and a Trojan horse for SOCIALISM.

In 1994 Keating would chide environmentalists for their focus on the “amorphous” issue of greenhouse gases. https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/08/01/august-2-1994-australian-prime-minister-paul-keating-says-greenies-should-ignore-amorphous-issue-of-greenhouse/

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.

Also on this day: 

December 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

December 21, 2005 – US activist William Rodgers commits suicide

Categories
Australia

 November 28, 2001 – “Stellar team for sun-powered debate” in Adelaide

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, November 28th, 2001,

FOOTBALLERS, media identities, politicians and scientists have little in common but tonight they unite for solar energy. They will be at the Adelaide Convention Centre for a public debate from 6pm on the future of solar power.

The debate features ABC science presenter Robyn Williams, former Adelaide lord mayor Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, CEO of UK solar electric power company Solar Century Dr Jeremy Leggett, Griffith University professor Ian Lowe, Advertiser youth columnist Mia Handshin, author of more than 90 publications on solar power and energy Don Osborne, and AFL player and politics student Che Cockatoo-Collins.

Freeborn, A. 2001. Stellar team for sun-power debate.Adelaide Advertiser,28 November 2001 P. 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that South Australia was back under Labor control. And therefore, it was trying to be more progressive on climate than the Liberals had been. And one thing to do was to get a bunch of celebrities together, hold hands, have a few PowerPoint. I’m being cynical because that’s who I am. But ultimately, it’s this sort of event that creates a “buzz.” 

 What happened next, South Australia kept acting on some of the green issues. Premier Mike Rann created the “Thinker in Residence” post and a couple of those people were very explicitly environment focused, for example, Stephen Schneider. South Australia has been making the running, especially penetration of renewables. So you know, you can be cynical if you want, (and I do) but sometimes something comes from the celebrities and the PowerPoints. They’re necessary, perhaps, but not sufficient. But maybe they’re not necessary. Maybe there’s correlation, not causation.

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.

Also on this day: 

November 28, 1976 – climate modelling workshop in USA

November 28, 2008 – somebody shuts down a coal plant, solo

Categories
Australia UNFCCC

Will Adelaide “do a Bradbury” in bidding to host COP 31?

Adelaide, is bidding to be host of the 2026 episode of the interminable climate soap opera known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change .(UNFCCC.  At stake an alleged $100-200m boost to the host city’s economy..

In what follows, I explain what’s a COP – hopefully telling you some things you don’t already know, offer a history of South Australian awareness of climate change, and then make some brief idle speculations on how Adelaide’s bid might fair – could it do a Bradbury?

Oh no, it’s the COPs!

COPs are the “Conferences of the Parties.” While there are plenty of parties at COPs, in this case the “parties” refers to the countries (almost the whole world) which have signed up to the UNFCCC;, which was one of the international treaties signed at the pivotal “Earth Summit” in 1992, held in Rio de Janeiro.

The first COP was in Berlin in March-April 1995 (a young Angela Merkel was a key player). There have been 28 since, and COP29 is starting today, in Azerbaijan 

The basic problem is that the original treaty never specified targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. The French and most European countries were keen, but Uncle Sam said “nope. Do that and we won’t come.”. That has meant a series of efforts to get emissions cuts agreed – Kyoto 1997  (agreed, but USA and Australia pulled out), Copenhagen 2009 (ended in tears and little else) and Paris in 2015 (warm words, no teeth). In the meantime,  the burning of oil, coal and gas has soared. This means that the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has gone way up (and is increasing faster and faster, as the things that take carbon dioxide out  of the atmosphere give up the ghost – or as the scientists call it – ‘sink failure’).

Of course, by the time Adelaide finds out if its bid is successful, the whole COP circus might be grinding to a halt, if Donald Trump repeats what he did last time round, and withdraws from negotiations.

Why Adelaide?

Anthony Albanese announced that Australia would bid to co-host COP31 with South Pacific Island nations in November 2022 (giving up on the idea of hosting it in 2024)].  It isn’t automatically capital cities that host the COP. For example when the UK hosted in 2021 Glasgow got the gig in any case.  Let’s start with the obvious reason why Adelaide might not succeed; it’s not on the Pacific Coast. However, unlike Sydney and Brisbane which are, Adelaide is not the capital of a state with an enormous coal export industry that has enraged the South Pacific Island states – “awks” as the kids used to say.

A history lesson

South Australians have always known that the weather matters, and is unpredictable. Go north of the Goyder line and you’ll see the abandoned buildings of those who thought they could buck the system. Over the last 55 years though, awareness has grown of man-made problems. 

In March 1970 a newly-elected Labor politician, Richard Gun, referred to carbon dioxide build up in his maiden speech (see this article on the Guardian website by Royce Kurmelovs).

In July 1970 as alarm at “ecology” (as it was then called) reached an early peak, a group of business leaders at an Adelaide luncheon were told the following

“And so the sprawling city, the maimed country, and even the air we breathe and the sea that gives us life, combine into what can only be described as a coming nightmare unless we as a people are prepared to become violently Australia-conscious and to replan, decentralise, preserve, prohibit and police. We won’t correct the situation unless first as individuals and secondly as a nation we are prepared to think, to take care and to spend money.” 

But this was not a protestor who’d stormed the stage. It was in fact Bede Callaghan, managing director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation 

Already in February of that year the Liberal government of Steele Hall created a committee (of course!) on the environment. It held hearings and in May 1972 produced the “Jordan report,” which included a mention of C02, though largely a dismissive one. 

And yes, it included a section – albeit understandably equivocal – on carbon dioxide. 

As with other states and countries, a Department of the Environment was created.  But carbon dioxide was a distant and contested problem back then. It pops up in some places, such as a September 1972 Friends of the Earth seminar “Is technology a blueprint for destruction”  at Adelaide University. and in the work of hydrogen-advocating Professor John Bockris at Flinders University in 1973.

A South Australian senator, Don Jessop mentions it in Federal parliament, in November 1973

“It is quite apparent to world scientists that the silent pollutant, carbon dioxide, is increasing in the atmosphere and will cause us great concern in the future. 

And while the warnings and alarms continued through the 1970s and 1980s, with visiting professors (including pro-nuclear ones), ABC documentaries, CSIRO documentaries, and mentions of the problem by groups such as  Environmentalists for Full Employment.

It is fair to say that policymaker awareness only took off in the second half of the 1980s. 

In 1985 atmospheric scientists met in Villach, a city in Austria. They realised they had underestimated the impact of gases other than carbon dioxide, and that the heating they had expected to arrive in several decades was likely to come much faster. They left Villach determined to warn policymakers. The Australian result of this was that CSIRO started briefing politicians, including the Australian Environment Council. After its June 1986 meeting, South Australia’s environment minister, Don Hopgood, went public with a stark warning about sea-level rise,

The following years saw a flurry of scientific and public/political conferences, promises, exhortations and committees, all about “the Greenhouse Effect.” Internationally this culminated with the climate treaty in Rio in June 1992. South Australia had set up committees and programmes, but all this was basically swept away with the disaster of the failure of the State Bank of South Australia, Premier John Bannon’s resignation and the enormous defeat Labor experienced.  The incoming Liberals paid lipservice at most, finding it easier not to kill anything off officially but let it instead die by neglect.

Climate change played little part in the debates over electricity generation that took up the second half of the 1990s.  However, a determined group of policy wonks were beavering away, keen to promote renewables and action on climate. The return of Labor in 2002 was a turning point. The first (tiny by today’s standards) wind farm went live the following year. Over the years, Premier Mike Rann skilfully found wiggle-room as the Federal government was forced to continue to offer policy support. As Tristan Edis put it in a 2014 article

“The way it works is SA public servants assess the likely amount of renewable energy that will be installed in the state within the next few years as a result of the federal government’s Renewable Energy Target. Then, the South Australian government take this projection of what will be achieved under business as usual a few years from now, and duly claim it as an ambitious target that they are setting for themselves, but push out the year a bit so they claim they’ve reached it ahead of schedule.”

But Rann had been attending to the broader cultural issues as well. He invited US climate scientist Stephen Schneider to be South Australia thinker in residence in 2006. Schneider’s message – that the Millennium Drought was a harbinger of problems to come and we’d better get preparing now, resonated.

The next Labor Premier, Jay Weatherill, accelerated Rann’s trajectory.  The 2016 blackout was perhaps pivotal.  Two events stand out – First, Weatherill dishing it out to Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and the latter just having to take it.

Second- the big battery of Elon Musk, back when progressives could look past some of his, shall we say, foibles. 

By the time Labor lost power, the energy transition had such momentum – and powerful people making money from it and popular support, that the state Liberals basically ignored their Federal counterparts. 

Labor has returned to power, with even bolder targets. It seems now somewhat starry-eyed about hydrogen, and alarmingly willing to do whatever Santos wants, before being asked.

What will happen?

Who knows? I’ve learned not to make confident predictions about anything other than “higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere next year.

We will all find out in a couple of weeks. Will Edis v2.0 work? It already has in once sense: Win or lose, Adelaide raises its profile and plays the ‘inward green investment’ vibes game. It’s a smart move from a political party that has shown alertness to the opportunities national and international policy games present niche actors.

Categories
Australia

July 13, 1974 – Adelaide hears about carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1974,

Btw, Hare had been present for Guy Callendar’s presentation at the Royal Meteorological Society in 1938

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that scientists had been doing further study about CO2. It was definitely building up. No one disputes that. What impact that might have on our species as a whole remains to be seen. That’s not entirely surprising. 50 years ago, Kenneth Hare would cover this.

What we learn is that if you were paying any attention, you could see the threat coming. But then we’ve been paying attention since 1988, which is only two thirds of that time 50 years and we’ve done nothing. Actually, that’s not strictly accurate. We’ve made things worse.

What happened next? Every so often carbon dioxide would pop up as an issue in Australia. Further context is that there had been the 1972 Friends of the Earth seminar, the 1973 UNESCO-sponsored conference at Flinders University, and Senator Don Jessup had made his statements in Parliament. You know, it wasn’t unheard of…

What happened next; more news articles, more awareness, no action, 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.

Categories
Australia

June 22, 1976 – climate truth reaches the provinces (i.e. Adelaide)

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1976, sleepy Adelaide warned of possible trouble ahead, when the CSIRO-made documentary “A climate of change” is shown on ABC in Adelaide 22 June 1976

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this stage Australian elites were at least dimly aware of the possible problem of climate change there, most of them probably still thought it was going to be a new ice age. The World Meteorological Organisation was really looking at CO2 and saying “uh oh.”. Kenneth Hare was in Adelaide.

What we learn – we knew enough by the late 1970s to be seriously worried.

What happened next – it would be another 12 years before the issue properly finally broke through. And even then, most everyone went back to sleep…

Fun fact Hare had been there in 1938 when Guy Callendar had given his presentation to the Royal Meteorological Society.

[It would be fun to look at the Royal Meteorological Society archives for that moment] You could do a book about moments in climate history, specific events, and then you could link it with what else happened. So Calendar plus PLAs at AGU and 53. Maybe Conservation Foundation meeting in 63. Keeling speech in 69. Maybe Smic meeting in 71 Luxenberg in 78, Villach in 85. 

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.

Also on this day: 

June 22, 1970 – US Congressman talks about ‘the Imperilled Environment,’ including C02 build-up

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise”

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse)

Categories
Australia

May 16, 1973 Energy and how we live. UNESCO seminar at Flinders

Fifty-one years ago, on this day, May 16th, 1973, there was a UNESCO-sponsored conference on Energy and how we live at Flinders University of South Australia, 

16-18 May 1973 / Australian Unesco Seminar ; Australian-Unesco Committee for Man and the Biosphere. –

You can see a clip with John Bokris here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-12/professor-john-bockris-on-his-warning-of-impending/13837976

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that UNESCO had been holding conferences about the environment and man’s impact pollution, blah, blah, blah for a while, the most notable of these was in Paris in ‘68. And that had been attended by some Australians. 

There was the Man in the Biosphere programme. Meanwhile, Adelaide had been alerted to climate issues, in newspapers and so forth. And watching the television, for example, the Monday programme and there had been the “Is Technology a blueprint for destruction?” seminar at Adelaide University in September of 1972. 

What we learn is that people who cared about that sort of stuff, were well aware of the dangers ahead, but basically were unable to convince everyone else that the danger was real and that something meaningful could and must be done. 

 What happened next. In November 1973 South Australian politician, Don Jessop gave a speech in Parliament about the buildup of CO2, possibly influenced by this event. 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.

Also on this day: 

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese says critical action on #climate being delayed by 20 years… #auspol

May 16, 2006 – UK Prime Minister Tony Blair goes nuclear…

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese, eco-warrior…

May 16 – Interview with Rosie, about zero population growth, zero climate progress, etc…

Categories
Activism Australia

September 24, 1989 – Petra Kelly disses the Australian Prime Minister

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 24, 1989, German activist and member of parliament Petra Kelly opined on Australian government policy

WHEN BOB HAWKE cried at a press conference in 1984, his face was plastered all over German newspapers.

That was about the last time matters of any relevance to Australian domestic politics rated even a centimetre of German news space.

That is, until Bob Brown and his team of green independents made it on to the Tasmanian Government benches in May.

According to the founder of the West German Green Party, Petra Kelly, the greens’ success in Tasmania was widely reported – even in the smallest German village.

“I think Bob Brown is probably the most well-known Australian in Europe,” Ms Kelly said from her hotel in Adelaide last week.

“He’s much more widely known than Mr Hawke.”

In Australia for an “ecopolitics” conference at the University of Adelaide, Petra Kelly has attracted media attention for describing Bob Hawke’s moves to capture the environment vote as just “green cosmetic surgery”.

Mealey, E. 1989. Petra sees green over Aussie Politics. Sun Herald, 24 September.

(Petra – the diminutive name – wouldn’t be used for Bob or Andrew. But tbf, has been used for “Boris”)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Petra Kelly was a big star from the German environmental movement and antinuclear movement. Adelaide was a good place to do this stuff and I totally missed it. I was not plugged into those networks and it pisses me off but it is what it is. At that time, btw, everyone in Australia was running around talking about the “greenhouse effect.”

What I think we can learn from this is that the mass media will use diminutive names, first names for women, in a way that they would not for men 

That there were linkages between German and Australian movements and learning; see Christopher Rootes’ article about this which appeared in Environmental Politics.

What happened next is that Petra Kelly died in 1992 – it was probably murder-suicide or possibly an agreed pact we can never know. And Hawke made grand promises about climate action that, well, never got kept. And here we are.

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 Nuclear Power

July 27, 1977 – Pro-nuclear professor cites #climate concerns at Adelaide speech

Forty six years ago, on this day, Wednesday July 27, 1977, a professor visited the country town of Adelaide to talk about his book…

Canberra Times, Thursday 28 July, page 7 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

11 years before yesterday’s blog post, a pro-nuclear Professor was in Adelaide giving a speech – basically part of his book tour for “Uranium On Trial.” And yes, climate change was high on his list of reasons why we should have nuclear. 

The broader context is that the Ranger inquiry was ongoing in Australia around uranium mining. And as the Professor noted, the National Academy of Sciences in the US was putting the finishing touches on its two year study of climate change. 

What I think we can learn from this is that even people in sleepy country towns like Adelaide had had news of climate by 1977. 

What happened next 

“if nothing was done”… We’re all going to die. And if you are under 40 or even under 50, you’re going to see that unfold properly in your lifetime. If you are 20 or under, my advice is to start carpe the diems right 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