Tag: Ecologically Sustainable Development

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1992,

Paul Keating does not like carrying out Bob Hawke’s ideas, like the ESD strategies which is one reason nothing has happened since the ESD groups made their reports last November. He also wants to gain green votes without upsetting the business world, and at a meeting in Canberra last Thursday [17th] with green and business lobbies, he listed the government’s new high-priority environment issues, says our Press Gallery reporter.

They don’t include mining or the logging of native forests, which split the community, but they do include: Soil degradation, industrial waste reduction and disposal, air and water quality, the urban environment, feral animals, marine protection and land and water management.

The green and business lobbies told us after the meeting that they were unhappy that Paul had nothing firm to offer them on ESD except the promise of a strategy in November (believed to be part of an Environment Statement) although it was better late than never.

Luker, P. 1992. Things I hear. Greenweek, September 22, p.2.

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

The broader context was that, as Treasurer, Paul Keating had been one of the most effective delayers of climate action, reducing ambition, kicking the issue towards groups that could be guaranteed to gum up the works.

The specific context was that Keating had become Prime Minister in late 1991, toppling Bob Hawke. He then was the only OECD leader not to turn up to the Earth Summit in Rio, and was allowing Federal bureaucrats to shit all over the Ecologically Sustainable Development program.

What I think we can learn from this is that we can get a BOGOF deal for air tickets to the Hague (one way) for Keating and Howard. Just saying.

What happened next – the Australian policy elite have persisted in being depraved planet-slaughering psychopaths ever since.  And that is me being generous.

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

Also on this day: 

September 17, 1954 – nuclear electricity will be too cheap to meter – All Our Yesterdays

September 17, 1969 – trying to spin Vietnam, Moynihan starts warning about #climate change

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

September 17, 2002 – UK Government announces feasibility study into Carbon Capture and Storage

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1991, the backlash against “greenhouse” and ecology action stepped up a gear.

The price of petrol would rise sharply under sweeping proposals for ecologically sustainable development revealed yesterday by a Government taskforce.

The ambitious plan to make industry sustainable by avoiding the overuse of resources was commissioned by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke.

The ecologically sustainable development working groups, which are writing policies for nine industries, released draft reports yesterday and called for public comment.

1991 Peake, R. 1991. Draft Ecology Plans Released. The Age, 8 August, p.15.

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

The broader context was that there had been an upsurge in concern about environmental issues in the late 1960s, and the Federal Government had responded with the usual mix of new organisations (including a Minister for the Environment) and fine words. Everything had more or less died down/become predictable for a long time, until the late 1980s. In order to keep green groups onside for the Federal Election of March 1990 (it was going to be tight) the Hawke government had promised an “ecologically sustainable development policy process.”

The specific context was that the ESD had been a ‘success’ – in that the arguments for the status quo/no action had been exposed as lazy and half-baked. The problem was, the bureaucrats were in the wings, waiting to water down proposals, and feed tame journalists scare stories…

What I think we can learn from this is that we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. The same mechanisms are in place now, with an extra 80ppm in the atmosphere since then.

What happened next – Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who killed off all the green crap the way a lion kills another lion’s cubs when he acquires a new lioness. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

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”. 

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.

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.