Tag: Ecologically Sustainable Development

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

September 3, 1990 – Greenies meet Prime Minister, a cautious dance ensues

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 3rd, 1990, Bob Hawke has to keep the promise that got him back as Prime Minister… (well, one of them).

Conservation groups left Parliament House in Canberra on Monday [3rd], resisting Federal Government pressure to join efforts to achieve consensus over sustainable development.

This followed Stage Two of a special summit process including representatives from government, environmental groups and industry.

Members of Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation, World Wide Fund for Nature and the Wilderness Society spent more than an hour with Prime Minister Bob Hawke discussing a range of issues.

Anon,1990. Greens meet Hawke but resist consensus. Green Week, September 4, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that small-g green had come out for Labor giving second preferences in the Australian Federal election of March 1990. This meant that the incumbent Labor government squeaked back home. And the quid pro quo was that there would be more serious engagement with “ecologically sustainable development.” There had been, at last, a position paper in June of 1990. That had been fairly piss-weak on climate, of course, because it’s the big unmentionable to hard basket item, really. And here was Hawke meeting with the greenies to the fear and dismay and disgust of the business sector. Which you have to remember at this point, didn’t know if Hawke might go on for years and years. 

What we learn is that there are always these sorts of meetings and quid pro quos and attempts to get mainstream parties to pay at least lip service to not being ecocidal maniacs. These usually end in tears for the ‘greenies’, because the system rewards Ecocide or maniac behaviour and punishes anything that isn’t ecocidal mania. 

What happened next? After some further toing and froing and argy bargy the Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process did indeed happen. The greenies performed well intellectually. Business didn’t quite know what happened. But it was all for naught because business and bureaucracy – especially bureaucracy – were able to water things down and water things down. And then they got especially lucky, when Hawke was replaced by his former Treasurer Paul Keating. And then the dismissal of ecologically sustainable development kicked up a serious gear. It was killed off in the committees and left to die by the wayside. And also, there was the infamous meeting in the middle of 1992. Supposed to be a two day event. But everyone walked out at the end of day one because the bureaucrats were such assholes.

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: 

September 3, 1988 – Ann Landers is Greta Thunberg avant la lettre…

September 3, 2002 – “Kyoto cuts too small, so we’re not going to bother”. 

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

June 25, 1990 – Ecologically Sustainable Development paper released

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1990, the Australian Federal Government is forced to keep a promise made to win the last election.

CANBERRA: The Federal Government gave assurances yesterday there would be no freeze on development applications for resource-based projects over the next year while it formulates its final policy on ecologically sustainable development.

It also undertook that the future of the proposed Coronation Hill mine in the Northern Territory – delayed by a review by the Resources Assessment Commission – would not be further delayed while the policy is being settled. The commitments were given by the Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, and the Minister for Primary Industry and Energy, Mr Kerin, when releasing the Government’s discussion paper, Ecologically Sustainable Development

Cockburn, M. 1990. Pledges on ecology review. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 June. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in order to win the 1990 federal election, Australian Labor Party had had to schmooze the environment movement and promise it further deeper involvement in policymaking. This was the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. And a paper was released on that day with relatively weak climate stuff, but you know, everything’s allegedly “up for debate”. The other context is that the Liberals felt that they had been shafted by the Australian Conservation Foundation, had snubbed it, and would continue to snub it. 

What we learn is that betrayal Dolchstoss is a strong narrative.

 What happened next? The ESD process launched, the environmentalists were better-informed and more committed and ran rings around industry who just thought they could turn up and get what they wanted and that their vague prognostications of economic doom would be a conversation ender. They didn’t expect anything else, why would they? So therefore, the ESD had to be defeated. Not through argument, but through politics watering down.

It was watered down significantly by bureaucrats, it dribbled out in the final versions in December 1991. And then a couple of weeks later, Bob Hawke was toppled as prime minister. And that really was the end of it as evidenced by the infamous meeting, in the middle of 1992 where everyone was extremely fed up with the bureaucrats (LINK).

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 25, 2003 – the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum is created

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds

Categories
Australia

October 16, 1990 – Green groups say yes to “Ecologically Sustainable Development”

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 16, 1990, some big green groups said “yes” to a policy process. It’s more significant than it sounds…

“The Federal Government’s sustainable development consultations received a fillip yesterday with the long-awaited decision by three of the four main environment groups to take part in industry working groups.

However, the three groups – the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature – refused to take part in the forestry working group on the grounds that it duplicated a Resource Assessment Commission inquiry into the industry.

The fourth main green group, the Wilderness Society, decided not to take part in the working groups, saying the Government’s recent environmental decisions showed it was unlikely to put ecologically sustainable development ahead of “conventional economic growth”.”

Garran, R. 1990. Green groups to join govt inquiry. Australian Financial Review, 17 October. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

In order to win the March 1990 Federal election Labor had had to cuddle up to green organisations, and promise them that it would be different next time, that the green organisations would be invited into the room with the big boys who were making the decisions. The “ecologically sustainable development policy making” process was part of this big picture but obviously that came with risks for everyone…

What I think we can learn from this

Is that for green groups there is an eternal dilemma – if they engage closely with state policy-making processes they can use up their time energy and credibility on something that goes nowhere, but if they refuse and are the perpetual outsiders than the foundation money is less forthcoming, ambitious people go elsewhere because aren’t you trying to change the system from within. “If you’re not trying to change the system from within, well what’s the point of you?” say middle class people who don’t understand how power works.

But then maybe they do, maybe without these sorts of efforts – even though they often go wrong – we would be in an even worse position? Who knows…

What happened next

The green groups went in, and the ESD process went tits up.  And this was most evident in the middle of 1992 when a planned two-day conference ended in farce. New Prime Minister Paul Keating kicked ESD into the long grass. And it is mentioned ruefully now if at all; you have to be quite old to have any history with it…

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

December 2, 1991 – “Ecologically Sustainable Development” bites the dust…

On December 2 1991, the Australian policy experiment of “Ecologically Sustainable Development” basically ended, just over a year after it began. It had been set up because the ALP’s Bob Hawke needed small-g green (the Greens didn’t exist yet) votes to win the 1990 election.  The ESD process had rattled along,and there’s lots of interesting stories (see AOY posts here and here).


Well, with Hawke mortally wounded (politically), and the Fight Back! by fossil interests (including right-wing Labour and Federal bureaucrats – this isn’t just Those Evil Capitalists Over There), the ESD’s days were numbered.

“The Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups final report received a “cautious welcome” yesterday, although there were fears the Government might not act to implement the report’s recommendations.

Union, conservation, business and political groups were generally pleased with the 272-page report which contains more than 300 recommendations for measures to achieve development which is consistent with preservation of the environment. The report was issued yesterday by the heads of the working group, Professor Stuart Harris and Professor David Throsby. However, some groups believed the report had “not gone far enough.”

The president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Martin Ferguson, said the working group process had been “very useful” for setting an agenda but not for “developing solutions to Australia’s economic and environmental problems.”  [THAT? Martin Ferguson??? Yes, that one… ]”

Iffland, K. 1991. Ecology report finds approval. Canberra Times, 3 December, p.3.

and

“When the chairmen released their work on Monday [2nd December], they took the opportunity to say the Opposition’s plan to cut the price of petrol would make it harder for the Government to meet its targets on reduction of greenhouse gases. Reducing the price of petrol by up to 19 cents a litre, as proposed by Dr John Hewson, could lead to greater use of petrol, in contrast to the theme of the Ecologically Sustainable Development taskforce of reducing energy use.”

Peake, R. 1991. A Tapestry That Weaves The Green With The Gold. The Age, 4 December, p.13.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 355ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Why this matters. 

There was a time ‘rational’ (or at least sane and understanding of limits) policymaking could be cosplayed. Now, not so much. We should remember where we failed for the last consequential time. It will soothe us so much as everything falls apart.

What happened next?

The next Prime Minister, Paul Keating, buried the ESD. The next Prime Minister after him, Honest John Howard, buried Australia’s chance of responding to climate change in ways that could have saved something from the wreckage. And here we are.

Categories
Australia

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

On this day in September 22, 1991, the hold-hands and sing Kumbaya phase of “ecologically sustainable development” came to an end. After 18 months, the “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process got (knee)capped.

“Damaging splits are emerging over the plan by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to put resource-based industries on a sustainable footing.

Business groups yesterday strongly criticised lack of consultation, and said they might withdraw from the process. They could then claim not to be bound by the recommendations of the taskforce. They said the plan to write ecologically sustainable development policies was badly flawed and could damage the national interest.”

Peake, R. 1991. Sustainable Growth Plan At Risk. The Age, 23 September, p.3.

and

Industry groups attacked the Federal Government yesterday for the lack of consultation in its ecologically sustainable development working groups.

However, in a separate move [and quite possibly co-ordinated, MH], the Minister for Resources, Mr Griffiths, criticised environmental groups over their role in the development debate.

The Business Council argues that the main engine driving the ESD process is the concern about the “potential augmented greenhouse effect”. But the groups had failed to recognise the point made by the Industry Commission in its report on greenhouse, that “there are major uncertainties in each of the many facets of the greenhouse effect”. 

The carbon tax favoured by the ESD working groups would have negligible effect on global greenhouse emissions if it were imposed unilaterally, the council said.

1991 Garran, R. 1991. Industry berates government on Sustainable Development. The Australian Financial Review, 23 September, p.4.

On this day the PPM was 352.34 PPM.

Now it is 420ish – but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Oh, we can have pretty much the same kind of economic growth we always have had. Bit of technofix here, bit of nip-and-tuck there, it will be fiiiine…

Even the relatively mild and reformist ideas of a carbon tax got kicked into the long grass… So it goes.

What happened next?

Hawke was on his way out. The next (Labor) Prime Minister, Paul Keating and his neoliberal hate-greenies officers kicked all things ecological, climate into the very long grass. John Howard took that and dialled it up to 11. And here we are…

Categories
Australia

August 29, 1990 – The Australian mining and forestry industries threaten to spit the dummy

On this day, August 29, 1990, the Australian mining and forestry industries – so long accustomed to freezing the greenies out of policymaking forums, had a tantrum.

“The mining and forestry industries last night threatened to pull out of the Government’s sustainable development consultations unless the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, repudiated highly critical comments by the Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly.

In a speech to the Fabian Society last night, Mrs Kelly attacked the Australian Mining Industry Council and the National Association of Forest Industries for their views on sustainable development.

Mrs Kelly said AMIC’s idea of a sustainable industry was “one in which miners can mine where they like, for however long they want. It is about, for them, sustaining profits and increasing access to all parts of Australia they feel could be minerally profitable even if it is of environmental or cultural significance”.”

Garran, R. 1990. Mining, forestry groups threaten to leave talks. Australian Financial Review, 30 August.

On this day the ppm was  353 ppm.  Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Sometimes, for reasons to do with public pressure, the normally closed shop of government (politicians and civil servants) and industry is prised open, briefly… It doesn’t last, and it rarely ends well…

What happened next?

The Ecologically Sustainable Development Process ended up happening, and some decent suggestions got put forward by various green groups, especially folks from the Australian Conservation Foundation. And it all got filed in the “circular file” thanks to the next Prime Minister, Paul  Keating, and Federal bureaucrats (see earlier post this month!). Turns out the state is not a wise neutral arbiter. Who knew…

Categories
Australia

August  6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats  #auspol #climate

On this day, 6th August 1992, at what turned out to be the death of the “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process, there was… a mass walk out.

The ESD policy process had been set up after the March 1990 federal election, by the returned ALP government as a kind of payment for support to the ‘green movement’. There were working groups, meetings, bold policy proposals (including – gasp a carbon tax) that – inevitably – got watered down. The process really died when Bob Hawke was replaced as Prime Minister by Paul Keating in late 1991, but the momentum carried it on for a few more months. And so

“Finally the National Greenhouse Steering Committee, comprising officials from all levels of government, produced a draft Greenhouse Response Strategy. It was largely oriented towards investigations, exhortations, negotiation and a pious faith in market forces. The report was released for public comment in 1992, but it received little support. 

“A two-day forum to discuss the report became a fiasco. First, even the environmental groups which had co-operated totally in the ESD process – the World-wide Fund for Nature and the Australian Conservation Foundation – denounced the forum and refused to participate. Then those who did attend, from industry, farming, the union movement and community groups, attacked the report. They said that they had worked hard in the ESD groups to negotiate workable agreements, combining environmental responsibility with conditions to promote economic development, only to have the agreements altered by faceless bureaucrats. The officials had planned to divide the forum into small working groups, but the participants refused to go until their concerns were discussed. There was no basis for moving into small groups to discuss details, as the whole approach was unacceptable. 

“At five o’clock, after a day of battering, the shell-shocked officials announced that the planned second day was cancelled. The level of discontent is illustrated by the fact that the conservative Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEA) issued a press release condemning the report. The IEA were concerned that the bureaucrats had altered the conclusions of the ESD groups, giving the impression that the small groups of officials had decided that they knew better than the rest of the community.”

Lowe, I. (1994) The greenhouse effect and the politics of long-term issues. In (eds) Stephen Bell and Brian Head,  State, Economy and Public Policy in Australia. Oxford:  Oxford University Press., p321-2.

Hutton and Connors, in their  1999 History of the Australian Environmental Movement tell a similar story – 

“… submissions went to committees of state and federal public servants; these committees weakened or even omitted many of the original recommendations and no action plans or timelines were determined. By this stage, conservation groups were so outraged at the gutting of the working groups’ recommendations that they boycotted the process. Even non- conservation groups were angered by the public servants’ actions. These bureaucrats were so attacked by industry, farmers, engineers and unions at a two-day conference in late 1992 that the second day was called off. Several of the conservation representatives on the working groups later related that they often found industry representatives, despite their vested interests, easier to work with than the bureaucrats. In a phenomenon seen many times in environmental disputes, bureaucrats in industry facilitation departments were even more committed to cutting corners on the environment to ensure short-term industry profitability than were the industries themselves.”

See also

Chamberlin, P. 1992. Greens boycott strategy talks. Sydney Morning Herald, 7 August, p. 3.

On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 354.99 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

It is good to remember that the state is an actor in this, or rather, state administrators have a role…Environmentalist trying to protect rainforests and other kinds of forest had grokked this some time previously of course!

What happened next?

The “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” was launched in December 1992. And instantly forgotten.

Categories
Australia

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

On this day,July 20, 1989, Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke, keen to surf the “environmental wave “all the way to the 1990 Federal Election, gave a much-hyped environmental statement in Wentworth, New South Wales. His wife planted a tree (it died). More importantly, the “world’s most comprehensive environmental” statement was… utterly silent on “the greenhouse effect.” Oops.

The Federal Government yesterday left the way open for Australia to become a new centre for energy-efficient processing industries but refused to give a commitment to reducing greenhouse gases through specific targets.

This was a major point of interest for Australian industry and a source of anger for the conservation movement ….

Earlier in the week, it was reported that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, had “rolled” the Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, over a bid to commit Australia to target reductions in greenhouse gases. ‘[by Michelle Grattan, in The Age!]

It was reported that Senator Richardson wanted the environment statement to include that Australia would aim to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2005.

The Australian Conservation Foundation’s director, Mr Phillip Toyne, said: “The most crucial failing of the Commonwealth’s statement is in the area of global climatic change.”

“Instead of setting firm targets for reduction of greenhouse gases, the Commonwealth has adopted an expedient and self-interested approach which advocates that Australia may even need to increase (greenhouse gases) to accommodate growth of internationally competitive export industries.”

Dunn, R. 1989. Hawke environment statement leaves conservationists fuming.. Australian Financial Review, 21 July, p. 5.

So, on the back foot, Hawke had further fence-mending to do, and this alienated some of the anti-green Labor sorts (of which there were many).

, 

Why this matters. 

It’s all here – the grand-standing, the refusal to commit to cuts, the self-interested and delusional spin about increasing emissions to reduce emissions. Under Labor, and less than a year into the greenhouse issue.  

What happened next?

Labor cultivated the “greenies”, dangling the prospect of an “Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process” were they to be returned to office. They were, by a very slender margin. THE ESD process happened, was trashed by the bureaucracy and is the source of some longing and regret by those who were involved.