Tag: Ecologically Sustainable Development

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.