Tag: Energy Efficiency

Categories
Australia Energy

October 4, 1990 – “Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 4th, 1990, the energy efficiency crew said the same thing again…

AUSTRALIA can reduce its contribution to global warming and improve its balance of payments with a major energy efficiency strategy, according to new research.

Three recent reports indicate that Australia is lagging behind other developed countries in energy efficiency and can improve performance dramatically to cut carbon dioxide output by up to 20 per cent by the year 2005.

Two of the reports say the target could be achieved with net energy savings of $6.2 billion a year by 2005, while the third says it could be done with no cost to the economy.

But a major national program would be required. This would see us use more public transport and switch to cars using only 4.5 to six litres of petrol per 100km (the average is now 12). All buildings would have to meet energy-efficient standards and higher road freight taxes would channel more freight to rail.

Our refrigerators could well have a 90-watts rating (as do the most fuel-efficient sold in the US) and not the 700-1,000 watts here.

The energy-efficiency plan is designed to save 42.6 per cent of energy in the residential sector, 54 per cent in the commercial sector, 38 per cent in transport and 23 per cent in manufacturing industry.

Two reports by Deni Greene, a Melbourne energy consultant – one for the Federal Environment Department, the other for all environment ministers – are at odds with the views of some that energy-saving measures cost too much.

Williams, G. 1990. Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October, p.19.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 from 1988 onwards “the greenhouse effect” was big news. There were some who thought (rightly) that there were huge savings in emissions to be made from tightening up energy efficiency regulations. See for example March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored

The specific context was that the Business Council of Australia was already brewing (had produced?) a report that said doing anything about energy efficiency would crash the economy.

What I think we can learn from this – we couldn’t even do the simple stuff. We couldn’t even pick the low-hanging fruit. What on EARTH makes anyone believe we can do the really tricky stuff? Srsly?

What happened next – by 1992 the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process” was dead in the water- killed by Keating.

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 4, 1957 – see, see – SPUTNIK!! – All Our Yesterdays

October 4, 1969 – “If we melt the Antarctic, our problems are solved because all of the ports of the world would vanish and the ocean will rise 200 feet.”

October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…

October 4, 1993 – Coal chief wringing his hands about “greenhouse,” promises new tech

Categories
Australia Business Responses Energy

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 18th, 1991 the rich people told future generations (especially of poor people) to go fuck themselves.

The Business Council of Australia yesterday rejected proposals to make industry more energy-efficient.

The council criticised recommendations by the Federal Government’s taskforce on ecologically sustainable development to increase energy prices and impose new taxes, such as a tax on fuel with high carbon levels.

The council said the country’s future lay in continuing to develop its natural resources. Its executive director, Mr Peter McLaughlin, said the sustainable development process could significantly damage industry unless it adopted a “much more realistic tone”.

Peake, R. 1991. Business Rejects Lower Energy Use. The Age, 19 August, p.14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Business Council of Australia, the main club for big business, was shouting no at everything, a bit like Ian Paisley did. And even stuff that made absolute sense on any level of economic thinking was shouted down. I think there are two things going on there, around fear of a slippery slope, and also that regulation might be shown – gasp – to be beneficial.

What we learn; two things. First, in the midst of a culture war, the red mist or the green mist descends. And the other thing we need to remember is that all of the economic modelling that outfits like the BCA were relying on and commissioning, assumed perfect efficiency already. And no matter how many empirical examples were given to them, by Alan Pears and other energy efficiency advocates, if it didn’t fit the theory, it was discarded. It was ignored. And so if you believe that things are already perfectly energy efficient, agreeing to further energy efficiency measures is actually merely agreeing to wasteful government regulation in and of itself, which will then encourage more bureaucrats to breed in dark corners. 

What happened next, the BCA won, and the Australian housing industry is still miserably inefficient, of course. But the economic models that say it’s impossible for business to be inefficient, persist and have their death grip on the minds – if you can call them “minds” – of business elites. 

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 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

Categories
Australia

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

Thirty three years ago, on this day, March 3, 1990, a report on energy efficiency, commissioned by Australia’s Federal Government, was launched

AUSTRALIA could save money and drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gas if it became energy efficient, a report released yesterday revealed.

The report, A Greenhouse Energy Strategy, commissioned by the Federal Environment Department, found that by the year 2005, Australia could reduce its carbon dioxide output by almost 19 per cent on 1988 levels, resulting in annual savings of $6.5 billion.

Mealey, E. 1990. Energy cuts could save $6.5bn a year. Sun Herald, 4 March, p. 37

And

In the year 2005, greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by 18.8 per cent below the 1988 levels, and at the same time, Australia could save $6.5 billion a year, Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson said on March 3. He was presenting the Greenhouse Energy Strategy report by Deni Green Consulting Services. “An annual saving on that scale has the potential to turn Australia’s economy around,” said Senator Richardson.

Anon, 1990.  How energy efficiency could save money, cut greenhouse gases.  Green Week,  March  13 , p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia and other nations were holding various meetings, The Hague (March 1989) Nordwijk (November 1989), etc. around a climate treaty. The US and UK were both trying to slow it down. And in these various nations, environmentalists were trying to get strong policies about greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In Australia the environment department (DASETT) paid for a study by an expat American economist called Deni Green. 

And on this day, a report was released, written by her, saying that energy efficiency measures would make achieving a putative 20% reduction in emissions by 2005 very, very doable. 

Various states were already talking about the Toronto target adoption, the Federal Government was holding out. Treasurer Paul Keating had stopped the push for one for such an announcement in 1989.

And of course, all of this was happening in the context of a federal election to be held later the same month.

What I think we can learn from this

We need to remember that people have been talking about the value of energy efficiency as a greenhouse gas reduction measure for literally decades. And yet, not nearly as much progress has been made as they would have expected that the time or could have been. And it’s worth exploring why. One simple reason is that efficiency is not sexy, it doesn’t mean that the politician can stand there with a big hardhat and a high vis jacket. It also speaks to having to be limited. And modern humans hate that idea, hate having to live within limits. Or rather, the capitalists hate the idea that we would have to…  see Hudson 2017 for more on this

What happened next

The Friends of Coal won all the big battles, and the idea of energy efficiency on steroids got sidelined again, of course.

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..

See also – I wrote about this report last year!

Categories
United Kingdom

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

On this day, December 12 in 1977,  the UK government launched an(other) energy efficiency scheme because … they were embarrassed

“It was the visit of US President Jimmy Carter in May 1977 that brought matters to a head. Carter had just launched a major energy saving programme, and the Prime Minister, James Callaghan, did not want to be outdone. ACEC were asked to design a new programme, and with Prime Ministerial support Benn was able to “bang heads together” in Whitehall. On December 12th 1977, he announced a £470m, 4-year programme (worth £2.7bn today), with the aim of saving £700m pa (£4bn) and cutting energy demand by 10 %.” 

(Mallaburn and Eyre, 2014)”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 334ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The UK government had already launched an energy efficiency scheme in 1974 which had achieved … not very much. All through the 70s there were concerns about energy – how much it would cost whether it was running out, whether you’ll be able to get hold of it and in the background for some people a small number at this point concerns about climate change

Why this matters. 

We need to understand that energy efficiency is desperately unsexy and difficult it is much harder to pose with a hard hat and a hi-vis jacket in front of loft insulation than it is in front of new production facilities whether those are nuclear gas offshore wind whatever.

What happened next?

The Labour government was kicked out in 1979 and the new administration of Margaret Thatcher did nothing about energy efficiency and nothing about climate change even though that she herself was briefed on the issue in 1980.