Tag: Canberra Times

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

Categories
Australia

April 29, 1967 – Canberra Times reviews Science and Survival

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1997, there was a book review in the Canberra Times which gave those who wanted to know enough to worry about. The book in question was Barry Commoner’s “Science and Survival”.

“Our factories, our cars, pour smoke and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and the consequences? Smog, of course; city-dwellers have come to take that for granted, though the time is coming when we must ask ourselves how much smog we are prepared to tolerate. But, worse than this, the “glasshouse effect” of atmospheric carbon dioxide must be increasing the temperature of the earth; and a report by the US President’s Science Advisory Committee has seriously considered the possibility of the Antarctic ice cap melting within the next few centuries, and raising sea level by some 400 feet — and engulfing many of the world’s major cities in the process.”

Aitchson, G. 1967 -A menace ot mankind?” Canberra Times, April 29, p.10

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Barry Commoner’s Science and Survival had come out the previous September and had been favourably reviewed by the Guardian and The Telegraph. And now, the Canberra Times.

What we learn is that this book was a crucial node in increased awareness of the climate issue. Not just because it was reviewed well, but because it inspired documentary makers such as Richard Broad and Roy Battersby. 

What happened next, The Canberra Times kept reporting on pollution issues. A Senate Select Committee inquiry started the next year. Were they inspired by reading Science and Survival? who knows…

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: 

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

Forty four years ago, on this day, January 31, 1979 the Canberra Times’ Tony Juddery reported on a speech by American scientist Alvin Weinberg, then visiting Oz.

Weinberg was basically saying “nukes and lots of them, or else suffer climate change.”

Juddery’s take? “A visiting true believer ignores the option of solar technology.”

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136977708

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Weinberg had been pretty sure about the climate problem and also sure about nuclear’s role in doing something about it since 1974, probably a lot earlier. He was on a tour in Australia, one of those typical “let’s bring out an expert, get some bums on seats, feel like we are an important outpost or colony in the boonies.” 

Judderry of the Canberra Times was a colourful character and did a good job explaining it.

So 1979 a couple of weeks before the First World Climate Conference was going to happen. This was not a big deal down under.  Fun fact; only one Australian WW Gibbs, of the Bureau of Meteorology  went. No one from CSIRO not Pittock, Pearman, not even the boss, Brian Tucker; it just wasn’t a high priority back in the day. 

What we learn

The great and the good were explaining reality to Australian political elites by the late 1970s. But yokels gonna yokel.  And I guess this puts the National and Country senators (Collard etc) efforts in 1981 in perspective…

What happened next.
In November 1981 the Office of National Assessments finally did a report. 

The polymath and Science Minister (1983-1990) Barry Jones got hold of the issue. Finally, in 1986 things began to move.

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 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind

Categories
Australia

January 19,1992 – they gambled, we lost

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 19th, 1992,

“One of the CSIRO’s top scientists says doubters of the greenhouse effect are gambling with the future of the world. Dr Graeme Pearman, coordinator of the CSIRO’s climate change research program, said yesterday there was little doubt global warming was a reality according to all the best scientific models.”

Anon, 1992. Greenhouse cynics gambling with future. Canberra Times, January 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the denialist campaigns in Australia, helped by imported American scientists, had been successful. And the Hawke and then Keating governments had significantly softened their stance, their already weak appetite for economic measures, such as a carbon tax. Pearman, who had been studying the climate issue for 20 years by this stage, knew what was at stake and was publicly pushing back. 

What we can learn from this is that scientists have been correctly predicting that the gamble was going on and correctly predicting that there might be losers in that gamble. 

What happened next is that a carbon tax came back onto the agenda in 1994-95. It was again defeated, then tax became ETS in the late 90s. Everyone was talking about it. And then finally Tony Abbott killed it off. More broadly Pearman has been very public about the struggles back then.

And we are toast. 

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 19, 1968 – Engineers are not ecologists…

January 19, 1976 – The carbon consequences of cement get an early discussion.

January 19, 2015 -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 12, 1995 – Australian carbon tax coming??

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, January 12th 1995 the game of chicken and dare around a carbon price in Australia was coming to a head. A front page story in the Canberra Times began as follows,

“A greenhouse gas levy remains firmly on the Government’s agenda, with the bureaucratic working group responsible for developing the levy meeting for the first time yesterday.”

 Henderson, I. 1995. Greenhouse gas levy remains to the fore. The Canberra Times, 12 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Conservation Foundation (a big green NGO) and others had been pushing for a carbon tax for years initially as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process. And although they had suffered defeats, they didn’t let it go. New Environment Minister John Faulkner had taken that on board and he had also taken on board Phlilip Toyne who had been a major force in the Australian green movement as head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. 

What we can learn is that there is a great deal of believing when you’re top of the web or “dissent ecosystem”, (not that you can be at the ‘top’ of such a thing) in that when you’re a big player it’s tempting to believe that you can join the system and change the system from within. Then there’s a logic to doing so, or wanting to do so: beyond easy claims and smears of careerism, and parlaying radicalism to take one of the jobs for the boys. Toyne tried. He failed to get the tax up – but that was because the opposition to it was clear and clever and the support for it did not have its shit together.

What happened next a month and two days after this was in the newspapers, Environment Minister John Faulkner pulled the plug on a carbon tax. Instead, there was a meaningless voluntary scheme, the Greenhouse Challenge, which was reheated a couple of times, but frankly, never amounted to a bucket of warm spit. 

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: 

Jan 12, 1983 – RIP to the “master organizer in the world of science”, Carroll Wilson

January 12, 2008 – Australian mining lobby group ups its “sustainability” rhetoric #PerceptionManagement #Propaganda   

Categories
Renewable energy

December 24, 1990 – Australia as renewable energy superpower

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 24, 1990, a letter appears in the Canberra Times… 

Renewable energy 

YOUR excellent report from Washington, DC, presenting evidence that renewable energy could substitute for coal, oil and gas in the 21st century (CT, December 17) needs to be supplemented with some information about the Australian situation… Commonwealth support for renewable energy has been very weak.

Canberra Times 24th December 1990

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122332903/13000347

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was talking about moving away from fossil fuels moving towards renewables. Would it be possible? Over what time-scale? etcetera 

Except when they weren’t and they were trying to sit on things, which is what the Australian government eventually took to doing.

What I think we can learn from this

The Politics of technology R&D – what gets funded, what doesn’t, by who, with what end-goals is always really interesting, well usually.

The crucial thing is this is Australia which could have been ahead of the game on wind power solar geothermal hydrogen you name it. But the problem was we had so much damn coal and natural gas, and the people who owned those resources also, in effect, owned the state and the policymaking process and have won all the big battles.

What happened next is we didn’t do that “clean energy transition.” We may yet in the future who knows, but it will be too little too late, by definition.

The age of consequences is beginning and the dildo of consequences never arrives lubed.

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

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 29, 1988, Australian members of parliament have a grip and grin photo opportunity to show how much They Care about the greenhouse issue. See this from the Canberra Times.

Parliamentarians of all political persuasions were encouraged to test the Wets and the Dries yesterday. But in this case the Wets and Dries were more in the realm of science than politics.

The Wets and Dries Testing Unit forms part of a display on climatic change held at Parliament House by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and opened yesterday by the Minister for Science, Barry Jones.

The display covers climate change and greenhouse-effect research being carried out by the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian National University as well as the Commission for the Future.

Mr Jones encouraged his colleagues to take a hands-on approach to the equipment the better to understand Australia’s field work.

He said that if Australia were to deal effectively with potential problems resulting from the greenhouse effect it would have to work carefully with all international bodies. Australia should also work closely with neighbouring regions such as the Pacific Islands, which faced annihilation if nothing were done.”

Wednesday 30 November 1988 Canberra Times page 22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a few days after Bob Hawke had opened the Science Centre, here was his science Minister Barry Jones trying to get politicians from both Labor and Liberals and Nationals to have “hands-on experience” of climate change at an event in Canberra. In 1988 everyone was running around being concerned about climate (we called it ‘the Greenhouse Effect’ back then), or saying they were. 

What I think we can learn from this

This sort of photo op jamboree serves multiple purposes. You can tell when you organise these things who turns up and who doesn’t, who sends her apologies, who doesn’t bother how engaged they are. Those turning up will want to get their photo in the newspaper, so that they can say to concerned constituents or “Yes, I recently attended X.”

Journalists get cheap/reliable copy. Everyone’s a winner!

What happened next

 The follow-on to the Greenhouse Project didn’t get funded. And so a separate entity Greenhouse Action Australia had to be founded. Jones lost his ministerial seat in factional infighting in 1990. And these sorts of jamborees became less doable after 1990, because it’s old news and because Liberals decided that they didn’t really want to try to capture green votes having failed to do so in 1990. Back to the betrayal, myth, Dolchstoss etc.

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.