Tag: Bob Hawke

Categories
Australia Event Report

Event Report: Bob Hawke (and the things we don’t talk about often enough…)

When Bob Hawke became Prime Minister in March 1983, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels stood at 343ppm.

When he was unceremoniously dumped by the Labor Party in late 1991, after failing to effectively counter Liberal leader John Hewson’s Fightback! campaign, the level stood at 355ppm.

When he died in 2019, the atmospheric levels stood at 411ppm (they’re now pushing 430ppm).  I don’t intend to recap his climate mis-steps (see here) and missed opportunities (I did that already in this Conversation piece:  Bob Hawke, the environmental PM, bequeathed a huge ‘what if’ on climate change).  Nor do I intend to give a blow-by-blow account of who said what about what to whom tonight (a video was made and is already up – if you’re ‘into’ history, politics etc, it’s definitely worth your time.

What I intend to do is … serve up a few banalities and call it a day.

Banality one is that History is about what gets told and how. It’s also about what doesn’t get told (and how it is not talked about – usually by running out of time/focusing on something else.

Fortunately there wasn’t that much banality on display tonight at the Hawke (!) Centre on North Terrace. The event was to launch/publicise a new book ‘Gold Standard: Remembering the Hawke Government’.

It was ably compered (not facilitated!) by Misha Ketchell  of The Conversation, who had managed to tear himself away from The West Wing to serve up a series of more-than-perfunctory soft-ball questions to the three professional historians (and co-editors of the book). These were (drum roll please)

They covered a lot of ground, and wore their deep expertise lightly (this should of course, be the norm among academics, but trust me, it ain’t).

They (especially Holbrook) were good on the way the Hawke government came to loom large as a picture of stability after the 2007-2018 bloodbath of the Prime Ministers. (Fwiw I think the Hawke/Keating era looms large because it was ultimately the death of the Australian Settlement, something discussed at the end of the event by – iirc- Bongiorno).

They (especially Black) were good on the way that the media landscape (mass, social) has transformed out of all sight, and how much more difficult governance is now. There’s a story (not told tonight) of Julia Gillard pointing out that you could offer a huge detailed set of policy statements and the journos would be hungry again hours later. The beast is hungry hungry hungry, and that isn’t helping anyone. (Thomas Mayo covered some of this last week in his Nelson Mandela lecture at the same venue, btw, and it too is well worth your time) – here, inevitably, is my blogpost about that.

What they didn’t cover (at all, or in great depth for my monomania)

So, for me as a former Australian resident and occasional visitor (nearing the end of the latest visitation), a few trends/dilemmas strike me afresh every time I cross the girt sea. 

  • The flag-waving nationalism (see here for my reflections on that: Who stands for an anthem? Australia from the 1970s to the 2020s. There is also an excellent observation by would-be-host of tonight’s event, Hugh White, in a recent Quarterly Essay.)
  • The exquisite vulnerability to climate change (which is being accelerated by the relentless search for fossil fuels for export purposes:  The Australian Oil and Gas lobby has just finished its latest trade fair about 200m from the Hawke Centre. It faced only tiny protests, after State Premier Peter Malinauskas unleashed some nice authoritarian anti-protest laws in 2023).
  • The running sore of a lack of any real reconciliation with Aboriginal peoples (the acknowledgement of country at tonight’s event was pretty cursory, tbh). If October 7th hadn’t sucked all the oxygen out of the room, then the heart-breaking vote against the Voice would have really damaged Australia’s international standing.
  • The increase in inequality and the visible rise of rough sleeping (which is the merest sliver of the tip of the iceberg of homelessness etc).  The ‘cost of living’ crisis is a permacrisis for many. It was not always this bad, at least in Australia…

Not all of this can be sheeted home to Hawke, but Hawke’s record especially on climate, the failure to keep the 1988 promise of a Treaty, and the failures around public housing (alluded to near the end), deserved, in my opinion, a bigger chunk of tonight’s assessment.  It’s one thing to say you want to avoid hagiography, it’s another to actually avoid it. That said, this was a very nicely done event, and they did, after all, only have an hour. The closest we got to a discussion of neoliberalism (a word mentioned once or twice, almost in passing, and called ‘economic rationalism’ back in the day – though there are ongoing debates about whether those two are the same thing), was Black talking about ‘civil erosion’ the (global) collapse in trade union membership and so on, and then another mention in the context of too-much hagiography.

At this point Frank Bongiorno gave a shout out to his book about the 1980s, and pointed to a list of failures (of treaty, of public service reforms, of the marketization of services that would be better off under actual public control).

Interviewed long after being booted out of the Prime Ministerial role by her own party (sound familiar?) Margaret Thatcher was asked her greatest achievement. She said… Tony Blair.

Blair learned from Hawke/Keating – the early years of Blair gave me a real sense of déjà vu for the mid-80s, in terms of the way the political battles were fought. But I am a bit of a weirdo perhaps (1). 

The economy grows, but the problems, the pile of debris we call progress, also grew.  Now, 20 and 35 years after they left the stage, those problems are becoming impossible to ignore…

Footnote

 At the bus-stop on the way home (after a fabulous meal at Dino’s, the Greek place at the King William Street end of Hindley Street) we bumped the sixteen-ish year old daughter of a friend.  The mum is very smart, as is the daughter. I asked her is she knew who Bob Hawke was. Nope. But then, I don’t think at her age I knew who, say, Arthur Caldwell was. The caravan moves on.

To read/re-read/watch/rewatch

The Hawke/Keating Hijack by Dean Jaensch

Tom Uren’s biog (my favourite bit is the tale of the UK and Australian POW camps and their different survival rates. See also James Clavell’s novel of Changi – ‘King Rat’

Blanche D’Alpuget 1982 Robert J. Hawke: a biography, Schwartz,

Blanche D’Alpuget 2010. Hawke: the Prime Minister, Melbourne University Press, 

John Murphy An Unlikely Survival: The politics of welfare in Australia since 1950

True Believers TV Show – see this rebuttal.

Labour in Power 1993

Chris Wallace 2019 How to Win an Election

Tory Bramston Bob Hawke: Demons and Destiny

Categories
Australia

April 12 1991 – Hawke’s “Energy Guide” 

Thirty five years ago, on this day, April 12th, 1991, an “Energy Guide”
was released. Here’s the press release…

MINISTER FOR RESOURCES ALAN GRIFFITHS

PIE91/963 5 April 1991

ENERGY GUIDE TO BE LAUNCHED ON APRIL 12

The Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, will officially launch the consumer household hint booklet, the “Energy Guide” on April 12, the Minister for Resources, Mr Alan Griffiths announced today.

Mr Griffiths made the announcement during an opening speech to a workshop organised by Greenhouse Action Australia in Melbourne.

Throughout the speech, the Minister highlighted the need for both household and industry consumers to take responsibility for short term measures which would have an immediate effect  on greenhouse gas emissions.  

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media%2Fpressrel%2FHPR02002063%22

“The energy guide is an intensive educational exercise. It shows how to save energy, save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions without any loss of quality of life,” Mr Griffiths said.

The Energy Guide will be distributed to every Australian household this month.

“If every Australian follows the hints contained in the book, we could reduce our annual output of carbon dioxide by a massive 36 million tonnes each year,” Mr Griffiths said,

“The book is a first for Australia, and recognises us as world leaders in educational campaigns to reduce greenhouse emissions.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australian political elites had been repeatedly warned about carbon dioxide build up, from the late 70s. You had the CSIRO conference in Port Phillip and then the 1980 symposium. These had been reported in places like the Canberra Times, National Party senators had talked about carbon dioxide build up. It was not exactly a state secret. 

The specific context was that in 1988 the issue had exploded into public awareness, thanks also to the CSIRO’s work as made possible by Barry Jones, Minister of Science, who had set up the Commission for the Future. Anyway, Labor Party had won elections in 1983, 1984 and 1987.The 1990 election had looked like a bridge too far, but Labor had squeaked home thanks to small g green voters, and here we see Bob Hawke having to engage with the issue, while also getting a photo op out of it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that this is the sort of light-green, blame-shifting, responsibility-shifting, big-picture-avoiding stuff that politicians love.  

What happened next:  So what we learn is that blame shifting is the name of the game. What happened next? Hawk was toppled a few months later, and all the environmental initiatives were binned by his successor, Paul Keating. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Also on this day: 

April 12, 1955 – Coventry Evening Telegraph – “Melting Ice Could Menace the World” – All Our Yesterdays

April 12, 1992 – seminar asks “How sustainable is Australian Energy?” (proposes switch to gas)

April 12, 1993 – “environmental economics” gets a puff piece

Categories
Australia

March 21,  1990 – Hawke’s final campaign appearance

Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1990, 

Some Labour spokesmen have forecast that the government could lose at least six seats from its last parliamentary majority of 22, and scrape back in several doubtful seats only with green preferences. Mr Hawke showed his worry about the impact of protest votes when he made his final campaign appearance yesterday [ 21 March]  at the National Press Club in Canberra. He called on young and disaffected voters not to vote green but, if they did so, to direct their second preferences to Labour. “When you wake up on 25 March,” he said, “there won’t be a Democrat government or a green independent government.”

Milliken, R. 1990. Green vote emerges as crucial factor in election. The Independent – London, 22 March, p.14. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the ALP had come to power in 1983, helped massively by a promise to protect the Franklin river from yet another damned dam.  They’d done a bit on environment – their record was not actively terrible the way it has become.

The specific context was that the Liberals had proposed a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labour. The Liberals had also convinced themselves that they could have lunch with the head of the Australian Conservation Foundation and he and the ACF would then “tell” all the greenies how to vote.  They didn’t really get it, did they?

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians lie and prevaricate (this will come as a shock, I know).

What happened next – Labor squeaked back in. Because of the green vote, they had to institute an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process. This went on through 1990-1 and then got totally kneecapped by the Labor government of Paul Keating.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day:

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

Categories
Australia

December 7, 1989 and 1992 – “Ecologically Sustainable Development” goes from hero to zero

Thirty-six/thirty-three years ago, on this day, December 7th, 1989/1992, ESD went from hero to zero.

CANBERRA: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, won approval yesterday from industry, union, farm and green groups in aiming to achieve the “ecological sustainability” of all Australia’s major resource industries within a year.

Seccombe, M. 1989. Hawke backed in bid to gain ecology-industry harmony. Sydney Morning Herald, December 8, p.4.

and

ESD and greenhouse agreement COAG, Perth Council of Australian Governments (COAG), Communique, ‘Environment – ESD and greenhouse’, COAG Meeting, Perth, 7 December 1992,

(By this time Keating and his gang had obliterated all concern for environment, and especially greenhouse gas reduction hopes).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353-356ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been a previous wave of eco-concern from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. It had run into the buffers, thanks to industry lobbying, state resistance and civil society exhaustion. From 1987 or so, first with the ozone layer and then the “greenhouse effect”, demands for actual action had grown.

The specific context was that these two events mark the beginning of hope and the triumph of experience.

What I think we can learn from this – the defeat then shaped the battlespace forever after.

What happened next – failure and defeat piled upon failure and defeat, as the scale of the problems grew beyond wicked to, well, existential and impossible. And yet we breed…

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 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967: Towards Tomorrow “Assault on Life”

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

December 7, 2011 – a CCS network is launched

Categories
Australia

September 30, 1991 – Hawke’s ministers and ESD 

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 30, 1991,

The cost of repairing damage to the environment must be included in the price of resources, the Federal Government was told yesterday.

The message was delivered to senior ministers during a private meeting with the heads of the Government’s working groups on ecologically sustainable development.

They warned that the community must be more closely involved if the plan to write sustainable policies for resource-based industries was to succeed.

The working group heads put their views directly to ministers and the Prime Minister, shortly before Mr Hawke had talks with representatives of business, unions, and green groups.

1991 Peake,R. 1991. Report Backs Green Levy On Consumers. The Age, 1 October, p.18.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that in 1990, after winning the March Federal election by a very slender margin, with the grudging support of small g- green voters, the Labor government of Bob Hawke had initiated an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process. This dragged on, and by September 1991 the draft reports were released.

The specific context was that everyone knew Hawke’s days were numbered – Paul Keating was lurking in the wings, waiting for Hawke to stumble…

What I think we can learn from this is that policy processes are  meat-grinders, and leave few good options for NGOs.  Refuse to participate and you look prima donna. Participate and you are ground down and look complicit.

What happened next – Hawke stumbled, Keating came for him, got the Prime Ministership. ESD got thrown in the bin.

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: 

September 30, 1969 -US activist publication mentions climate change

September 30, 1977 – “Carbon Dioxide and climate: carbon budget still unbalanced” 

September 30, 2009 – Tony Abbott says #climate science is “absolute crap”

September 30, 2014 – a big CCS demonstration project opens.

Categories
Australia

July 5, 1989 – Bob Hawke launches a book

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 5th, 1989,

“Following the Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, launched a book by the Commission for the Future on how individuals could take action to help save the planet from environmental disaster.”

 Dunn, R. 1989. Canberra set for Environment Pact. Australian Financial Review, July 6. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australian political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up repeatedly. By 1986, Australian scientists, aided by Minister for Science Barry Jones, were upping their volume.

The specific context was that Bob Hawke had – with a nudge or three from his Environment Minister Graham Richardson – latched onto “the Greenhouse Effect.” There had already been, in May, a proposal, from Richardson, for the Hawke Government to agree to the “Toronto Target” of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005. This had been shot down by Treasurer Paul Keating.

Meanwhile, Australia was being flooded …. With books about What You Could Do As An Individual.

What I think we can learn from this is that waves of concern come and go, but people can’t look into the abyss for very long…

What happened next was that this wave was mostly gone by late 1991, thanks to usual wave exhaustion, the first Gulf War and the successful fightback by business interests.

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: 

July 5, 1973 – The Predicament of Mankind discussed

July 5, 1989 – Nuclear tries to regain some credibility, latching on to greenhouse

July 5, 2013 – that turd Michael Gove …drops plans to drop climate from curriculum

Categories
Activism Australia

June 22, 1990 – ALP already undermining green agenda

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1990, the governing Labor Party of Australia is – gasp – siding with the rich and against the future.

Conservation groups have accused economic ministers within the Hawke Government of hijacking the environment debate and pre-empting discussion of a paper on sustainable development due to go to Cabinet next Tuesday.

The executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, said yesterday that the ACF was “extremely concerned” to express disquiet with the fact that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, and other economic ministers were trying to dominate the sustainability debate.

1990 Lamberton, H. 1990. Environment debate ‘hijacked’. Canberra Times, 23 June, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ALP had clung to power at the March 1990 election thanks to green-concerned voters holding their noses and voting for Labor candidates.  Some Labor figures (Peter Walsh, for instance) hated this, and hated the greens (the Greens didn’t exist yet). Meanwhile, the business pushback against all things environmental (except greenwash, obvs) had begun in earnest in March 1990….

What I think we can learn from this is that the ALP has never been able to cope with green issues. On some level they know this, I assume.

What happened next. The Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process got underway, and came up with some decent workable ideas, which were then watered down/ignored and then memory-holed – see here for the spectacular implosion of the whole process- … And the emissions kept climbing.

xxx

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Also on this day: 

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

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

Categories
Australia

October 10, 1991 – “United greens attack Hawke” for gross betrayal”

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 10th, 1991, on the one year anniversary of Australia setting an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction target…

MELBOURNE: Accusing the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, of a “gross betrayal”, major conservation groups united yesterday to condemn the Federal Government’s proposed resource-security legislation.

The executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, said Mr Hawke was going ahead with the legislation despite a commitment last year that he would not.

He said the Prime Minister had made the pledge to himself and environmentalist-musician Peter Garrett, during a meeting between the three.

“He told us there would be no resource-security legislation. It was an unambiguous exchange of views and the intent was clear,” Mr Toyne said.

Anon. 1991. United greens attack Hawke. Canberra Times, October 11, p.10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was clearly being gutted. And Hawke was not defending it. It was a long time since the heady days of 1989, 1990 when people were voting green. Hawke had other things on his mind, such as a potential challenge from Paul Keating, and also the new Liberal leader, John Hewson with his so-called Fightback! neoliberal policy. So the green issues could go jump, basically.

What we learn is that for everything there is a season and seasons for environmental concern, rarely seem to last more than a year or two. And then the pull of greed and “must keep the economy bubbling along” comes back stronger than ever. And so it came to pass.

What happened next two months later, Hawke was gone. Paul Keating successfully challenged: he was not a fan of environmental issues. And especially the so-called amorphous greenhouse issue. And it’s fun when you read his memoirs or biographies, it just doesn’t crop up. It’s just staggeringly absent. 

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: 

October 10, 1977 – famous scientist Solly Zuckerman writes to top UK Civil Servant, warning about climate change

October 10, 1997 – Australian businesses say ‘yes’ to a decent Kyoto deal

Categories
Australia

October 5, 1989 – Enviro minister “Richo” warns Hawkie to save “Kakadu”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 5th, 1989, Australian Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson warns Prime Minister Bob Hawke that he will have to save Kakadu (i.e. ban mining) to win the election, because green-minded voters will accept nothing less. (See Paul Kelly’s The End of Certainty for details)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had been digging up and exporting minerals for good 25 years in large quantities. And the whole concept of Aboriginal land rights and sacred sites was nothing important back then. Not to the white people anyway. But by the mid-late 80s, that was changing. And the idea for an expansion of the uranium mine at Kakadu that would damage the National Park was a vote loser in the marginal inner city constituencies where Labor hoped it would be able to cling on to power at the next federal election. This had to happen early in 1990 and therefore Graeme Richardson, who was Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s very effective environment minister, was telling Hawke that he was going to have to save Kakadu even though this was going to seriously piss off the mining lobby. The mining lobby feared that it was the beginning of serious restrictions on their ability to plunder, sorry to “develop”, Australia’s resources for their own benefit. And Hawke took that on board; he delayed the decision and took the credit for that.

What we learn is that these seemingly tangential issues are important to understand if you want to understand how climate policy works

What happened next Labor did in fact squeak home in the March 1990 election, and then had a quid pro quo debt to keep the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. 

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: 

October 5, 1988 – Vice Presidential Debate and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’

October 5, 1992 – Ignoreland hits the airwaves. #Neoliberalism

October 5, 2006 – Greenpeace sues Blair Government over shonky energy “consultation”

Categories
Australia

July 20, 1989 – New “Ambassador for the Environment” role makes greenies happy

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 20th, 1989, a nice new job is announced…

Major conservation groups believe that the new post of Ambassador for the Environment will be only as effective as Federal Government policy allows.

The new position – to be filled by the former Governor-General and High Court judge Sir Ninian Stephen – was announced by the Prime Minister this week as part of his major environmental statement.

Mr Hawke said that “no-one could better discharge that role for Australia”.

Speaking from Melbourne, Sir Ninian said he was not sure why he had been chosen but was delighted to accept when it was offered by Mr Hawke by telephone last weekend.

Bailey, P. 1989. All praise for our green envoy. Sydney Morning Herald, July 22, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Australia gets its first ambassador for the environment. A nice job for a superannuated civil servant in this case, Ninian Steven.

The context was that Prime Minister Bob Hawke had an eye on the next federal election, and needed to keep small-g green tinged voters onside, and needed to therefore do some harmless appointing of meaningless jobs to fly the flag and to keep the greenies happy. 

What we learn is that the sorts of gestures get made, you always have to ask for “What responsibilities does the person have?” “What rights do they have?” “How will they be funded?” “Will they be able to take names and embarrass anyone?” And if there aren’t good answers to those questions, then what you’re looking at is just more bullshit. 

What happened next. He had the job for a while, I forget who was next. Think it was a woman. The post degenerated to its natural state when the head of the Australian Coal Association, Ralph Hilman, was appointed by John Howard.

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: 

July 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football…

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed