Tag: Canberra Times

Categories
Australia Denial

January 24, 2002 – Ray Evans says global warming scam is “the most audacious”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, January 24th, 2002, a well-connected idiot spouts his usual shite.

Writing in the Canberra Times on January 24 (2002), [Ray] Evans stated: “Of all the political scams of the post-war period, the global warming scam … is the most audacious.” https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/wmcs-hypocrisy-greenhouse-emissions 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context is that you will always find people willing to deny impact science, who are willing to say that smoking is safe, asbestos is safe, etc, because, well, they’re being paid to and they regard “impact science” as somehow a betrayal of human ingenuity. Well, it’s absolutely not.

The specific context was that Ray Evans had been the heavy, the thug, for particular mining interest, led by Hugh Morgan, around a whole bunch of issues, Aboriginal land rights, work, worker safety, you name it.

Evans, in the mid-90s had been an important go-between with American denialists, such the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Australian climate denial lobby. That’s not to say there weren’t already relationships with various American denialists being invited down to give talks at the Tasman Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, et cetera.

By 2002 the third IPCC report had come out, the Kyoto negotiations were bogged down. But crucially, in Australia, there was a fierce battle about whether to ratify Kyoto or not. Prime Minister John Howard, a stupid but cunning climate denier, had not yet said he wouldn’t, and outfits like  the Business Council of Australia were suffering internal dissension over Kyoto ratification. The people who wanted Kyoto ratification wanted carbon trading, etc, etc, 

Those who didn’t, thought it was all a scam, and Evans was one of their champions. By this time as well the ludicrous Lavoisier group was a thing.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is always a henchman – and you can waste time thinking too much about them and too little about those they represent.

What happened next  Ray Evans faded and then died. Good riddance. Mad denial continues.

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: 

January 24, 1967 – Senior British scientist says “by no means can (C02) report be dismissed as science fiction”…

January 24, 1984 – Canadian TV documentary and discussion about #climate 

January 24, 2017 – Climate activist is court in the act

Categories
Australia United States of America

December 14, 1973 – Canberra Times on melting ice caps

Fifty two years ago, on this day, December 14th, 1973, an article in the Canberra Times about the American writer Howard Wilcox warning of ice caps melting etc

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 330ppm. 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 warnings about polar melting had a long history. Various causes for the melting (natural and man-made) were being put forward.

The specific context was that Wilcox thought it was going to be the problem of “waste heat” rather than carbon dioxide build-up that caused the problem (he was not alone in thinking this, btw).

What I think we can learn from this – the phenomena can be disputed, the cause disputed. Lotsa disputes (because reality is confusing. “Science” remains though, a pretty good way of figuring out what is going on… Beats chicken entrails and wild guesses, anyway).

What happened next Wilcox wrote a book. It’s not very good.

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 14, 1988 – Greenhouse Glasnost gets going…

December 14, 1992 – UK “releases “National programme on carbon dioxide emissions”

December 14, 1995 – Monbiot nails it with “it’s happening” article – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

July 27, 1988 – The greenback effect

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, July 27th, 1988 a highly entertaining and informative article by Australian chemist Ben Selinger is published in the Canberra Times.

Selinger, B. 1988. The greenback affects the greenhouse effect. Canberra Times July 27, p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. 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 scientists (and probably especially the chemists!) had been looking at carbon dioxide build-up for at the very least a decade and saying “oh, there will be trouble at some point.”

The specific context was in 1988 the issue had hit the headlines (in part thanks to sterling work by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO’s division of Atmospheric Physics). By 1989, we were into the blustering and “funding for further research” dodges and wheezes as politicians began to understand quite how disruptive to the status quo that real greenhouse action would be.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a very identifiable pattern to the recurrent booms in awareness – we live in a kind of Groundhog Day, but without quite realising that. So, a boring tragedy instead of a Buddhist comedy…

What happened next – the counter-attack to climate concern got properly going in late 1989 and then picked up momentum and support. Meanwhile, the emissions kept going up, as did the atmospheric concentrations…

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

July 27, 1979 – Thatcher’s Cabinet ponders burying climate report

July 27, 2001 – Minerals Council of Australia versus the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia

July 13, 1999 – Australia’s emissions climbing. Obvs.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1999,

Opposition and Conservation groups attacked the Government’s greenhouse performance yesterday over revelations of a 16.9 per cent rise in greenhouse-gas emissions between 1990 and 1998. Labor environment spokesman Nick Bolkus said there was ‘no way’ Australia would meet its Kyoto greenhouse targets based on National Greenhouse Gas Inventory figures, which showed a record annual jump in emissions from 1997 to 1998. Australia has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to no more than 8 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010 under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Webb, H. 1999. Emission Levels Put Cabinet Under Fire. Canberra Times, July 14, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. 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 Australia’s political elites had made some of the right noises on climate change in the period 1988 to 1990, but then started backtracking and weaselling.

The specific context was that since 1996 the Liberal government of John Howard had been less apologetic, and in fact almost gleeful about not bothering on emissions reductions.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been knowing that we were heading in the wrong direction, at faster and faster speed, for a generation. But our political systems, and those in them, well, shoulder shrug…

What happened next Shoulder shrugs! Eventually (2006-7) Labor used the climate issue as a way of dislodging John Howard. Then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd played politics with the issue rather than getting something decent through. And then Julia Gillard (who toppled him) had to guide an emissions trading scheme through parliament. And then Tony Abbott came in and tore it up. Worst soap opera ever.

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 13, 1971 – Stephen Schneider “predicts” an ice age (so the myth goes)

July 13, 2013 – future Australian PM ridiculed for #climate idiocy

Categories
Australia

May 29, 1989- “We will all be flooded”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989 the Canberra Times pointed to sea level rise as a thing.

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 by mid 1989 you could not move but for documentaries, newspaper articles, magazine articles about the Greenhouse Effect, at least in Australia. This was part of that.

What I think we can learn from this is that we got all the warnings we needed.But “we” – civil society – was never able to overcome its own inertia and fears, the resistance of the state and the corporates. Not even able to really try, unless you count manifestos, marches and other meaningless maunderings in the absence of sustained, iterative, reflective praxis – and who has the mental, financial, emotional or temporal bandwidth for any of that? 

What happened next. The August 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein knocked the issue of The Environment from its perch (something had to – journalists and readers were getting bored!). It turns out we cannot easily – in the words of Donna Haraway – “stay with the trouble.” And then the denial campaigns properly kicked in and everyone settled into a generations-long game of kayfabe, of pretend. Eventually though, by the late 2010s onwards, the consequences of previous failure began to catch up with us. Mephistopheles was knocking on the door, waiting to collect…

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 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate) – All Our Yesterdays

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down 

Categories
Australia IPCC

 May 28, 1990 – “Global Warming is really here” (IPCC First Assessment Report)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 28th, 1990, the Canberra Times reports on the report of Working Group 1 (the science bit) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Mussared, D. 1990. Global warming is really here: UN.  Canberra Times, May 28, page 11

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC had been agreed in 1988, with pressure from the United States Government, which was keen to avoid a repeat of the ozone issue, where uncontrollable scientists had “bounced” (in the perception of politicians and state functionaries) governments into action. It was not a precedent they wanted reinforced, so the IPCC was set up to head off things like the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases….

The IPCC was asked to produce reports in November 1988 and did so in record time. The Working Group 1 report was presented to Thatcher’s cabinet by John Houghton, head of the Met Office and head of Working Group 1.

What I think we can learn from this. The politicians were briefed. It is not a question of whether they knew enough. They did.

What happened next. The negotiations for a climate treaty were deformed by resistance from the United States, the Gulf states and then Australia. No targets and timetables were set for emissions reductions by rich countries. The IPCC sank into a routine of producing special reports as requested and assessment reports on a five or seven year cycle.

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 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

May 28, 1969 – “Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley

May 28, 1982 – “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity”  – 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

August 31, 1992 – “Community Energy Audit” in Canberra

Thirty two years ago, on this day, August 31st, 1992, a community energy audit began.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/137177083

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was running around “getting their house in order.” There was still money sloshing about for greenhouse stuff. Although the tap had dried up. Mostly there was still old water coming through the Rio Earth Summit that happened and now Local Agenda 21 was going to kick in and everyone was supposed to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and do local energy audits and so forth, to “save the world.” 

What we learn is that there was a period between 1988 and 1993 when and – this was crucial, because it happened as I was hitting adulthood, or at least chronologically, if not emotionally – when it looked like we might do something, or that something could be done. And then neoliberalism which had been there, got turbocharged because it was now for a while, a unipolar world. There was nothing outside the market. 

And all that is gone and forgotten. And this All Our Yesterdays is in part a project to remember that sense of possibility. 

 What happened next, the community energy audits, either dried up or weren’t done or they continued to be done, but they were ignored, because the greenhouse issue was irrelevant, and it had been “solved” anyway because we’d held a meeting in Rio and everything was going to be fine because something something technology something something promises something something Emissions Trading something something. 

The lies we tell ourselves so that we can turn over and go back to sleep and not challenge power are astonishing. Challenging power is very very costly because power by definition can make your life miserable. 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.

Also on this day: 

August 31, 1998 – Green dollar growing on trees?

August 31, 2011 – anti-carbon tax protesters call Anthony Albanese a “maggot”

August 31, 2005 – “Stop Climate Chaos” launched

Categories
Australia

August 24, 1992 – Bureaucrats kill greenie-business consensus on climate action

Thirty two years ago, on this day, August 24th, 1992, the last chance to do something differently is killed off.

The Canberra Times has a front page story that begins thus:

Federal and state bureaucrats have watered down and fatally weakened recommendations agreed to by industry, conservationists and scientists to lessen the greenhouse effect, according to the Institution of Engineers, Australia.

The IEA’s claims are similar to those made by Australia’s green groups, who have pulled out of the final stages of the Ecologically Sustainable Development process in protest at what they see as undermining by the Federal Government.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/137175203

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the greenies (small g because the Green Party didn’t exist,) had forced then Prime Minister Bob Hawke to launch an Ecologically Sustainable Development policy-making process in 1990. This had come up with some good ideas, which were then watered down. And the whole thing was then being vigorously killed off by 1992. Not so much by Paul Keating, but by federal bureaucracy henchmen, who were determined that Australia’s future was about digging up more and selling it, chopping down more and selling it. And then for them, development meant growth, industrial growth, GDP growth at any cost, and they didn’t see why they should have to pretend to listen to a bunch of Luddite hippies. Now that the media was bored of listening to the “Luddite hippies”, and there was this ridiculous summit had been agreed. 

What we learn is that when we only pay attention to politicians, and business, we miss an important aspect of the resistance to sanity. Namely, the permanent bureaucracy that thinks it runs the show and often does run the show. But activists are very loathe to talk about this – some activists anyway – perhaps because it seems like a conspiracy theory. And also you’re beating up on people who can’t talk back to you but can sabotage you. Assholes, in other words. 

What happened next: A carbon tax, which would have been one small part of an overall intelligent response, was defeated in 1995. The emissions kept climbing. And the consequences are beginning to pile up…

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: 

August 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

August 24, 1994 – first signs of a split in the anti-climate action business coalition…

Categories
Australia Canada

July 2, 1988 – Scientists warn of devastation…

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 2nd, 1988, scientists called it, and people in Australia’s capital were warned.

TORONTO, Friday (KRD).—Toronto scientists and policymakers from 46 nations say global damage from “greenhouse” warming and other man-made atmospheric changes may ultimately be second in magnitude only to the devastation of a nuclear war.

They also called on industrialised countries to tax fossil-fuel consumption to finance a fund to protect the atmosphere and drastically cut carbon-dioxide emissions.

Anon, 1988. Scientists warn of devastation. The Canberra Times, 2 July, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Changing Atmosphere conference had happened in Toronto, the days before.

The Canberra Times had been banging on about environmental issues for a long time. See, for example, a book review as far back as 1967, which mentioned the possible impacts of carbon dioxide. And already by this stage, the Greenhouse Project had launched and Greenhouse 87 had happened and Greenhouse 88 was well advanced in its planning. 

What we learn is that none of this was a state secret. Even before Bush and Thatcher got hold of it, it was all out there for anyone who wanted to pay attention. Of course, there are incentives not to pay attention. Very big incentives indeed. And most of us go for those incentives. Why wouldn’t we? And to be clear, those incentives are both internal and external, and can be dialled up or dialled down. We, as a species, have chosen to dial them down, and dial up the incentives to not pay attention. 

 What happened next? Greenhouse 88, with US scientist Stephen Schneider coming over, local scientists saying the same. And here we are 36 years later, having failed to act and having actually made things a lot worse. It is somewhat depressing, I’ll admit, if you’re attached to the idea of humans as an even potentially rational species. If you let go of that illusion, I suppose it becomes more explicable and forgivable. But think of all the other species we’re taking down with us. What a shitshow. 

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 2, 1952 – Rachel Carson says Arctic warming

July 2, 1993. Denialists versus the facts, again.

July 2, 2007 – Australia learns it has been left “High & Dry” on #climate change

July 2, 2013 – Ignorant man who became prime minister disses wind farms

July 2, 2013 – Boris Johnson, expert on energy systems, attacks windfarms