Tag: Graham Richardson

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

March 7, 1991 – Australian Labor Party bragging about its green credentials…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, March 7th, 1991, Senator Graham Richardson was claiming

‘Australia’s commitment was “the most progressive policy, I might say, of any nation in combating the threat of greenhouse climate change.’”

Senate Hansard 1439 (source)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Graham Richardson had been the Federal Environment Minister between ‘87  and ‘90 and had pushed through various useful bits of legislation and tried to push others. But after the March 1990 election, he had expected to get and was promised, according to him – Defense, and then was given it, and then it was taken away. Hawke hadn’t done his numbers correctly, and Richardson was pissed and was secretly working for Keating, who, by this time, was glowering on the back benches. I don’t know the specifics of why Richardson was boasting about this, but presumably someone will have made a jibe about Labor’s position. 

What I think we can learn from this

Labor was still boasting its environmental credentials. This would change under Keating, who was kind of a proto camera, and got rid of all the green crap and stop talking about amorphous issues. 

What happened next

Richardson became Environment Minister again, very briefly in 1994, before being replaced by John Faulkner. Richardson then lurched further and further to the right, though he’d always been on the right of the Labor Party. 

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: 

March 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.

Categories
Australia

October 5, 1989 – Enviro minister “Richo” warns Hawkie to save “Kakadu”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 5th, 1989, Australian Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson warns Prime Minister Bob Hawke that he will have to save Kakadu (i.e. ban mining) to win the election, because green-minded voters will accept nothing less. (See Paul Kelly’s The End of Certainty for details)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had been digging up and exporting minerals for good 25 years in large quantities. And the whole concept of Aboriginal land rights and sacred sites was nothing important back then. Not to the white people anyway. But by the mid-late 80s, that was changing. And the idea for an expansion of the uranium mine at Kakadu that would damage the National Park was a vote loser in the marginal inner city constituencies where Labor hoped it would be able to cling on to power at the next federal election. This had to happen early in 1990 and therefore Graeme Richardson, who was Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s very effective environment minister, was telling Hawke that he was going to have to save Kakadu even though this was going to seriously piss off the mining lobby. The mining lobby feared that it was the beginning of serious restrictions on their ability to plunder, sorry to “develop”, Australia’s resources for their own benefit. And Hawke took that on board; he delayed the decision and took the credit for that.

What we learn is that these seemingly tangential issues are important to understand if you want to understand how climate policy works

What happened next Labor did in fact squeak home in the March 1990 election, and then had a quid pro quo debt to keep the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. 

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 5, 1988 – Vice Presidential Debate and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’

October 5, 1992 – Ignoreland hits the airwaves. #Neoliberalism

October 5, 2006 – Greenpeace sues Blair Government over shonky energy “consultation”

Categories
Australia

March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1994, the Australian political elites lived up to their convict heritage.

“Cabinet is understood to have agreed in January 1991, before talks on the UN convention, that Australia would not proceed with measures which had “net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia’s trade competitiveness in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse gas-producing countries”.

Former environment minister and former senator, Mr Graham Richardson, used exactly the same words when he described the joint Commonwealth-State position on climate change to Parliament on March 16.”

Gill, P. 1994. Minister signals change of policy on greenhouse gas. The Australian Financial Review, 26 May, p.6. [On Evans using exactly the same words on 24 May]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that Australia had made a very weak eye-catching commitment in October of 1990, saying that it would reduce emissions if other large emitters did so, on the proviso that there were no economic consequences to speak of. Australia had not introduced any carbon tax and only had a pissweak “national greenhouse response strategy” which was utterly toothless. The UNFCCC treaty had been ratified by enough nations quite quickly, and was going to become law imminently. And therefore the problem for Australia was they’d signed it. What might they have to do? And this was Graham Richardson, who only five years earlier had been a tub thumping “we must save the world” activist who can be credited with having won the 1990 election for Hawke. He was backtracking, or in his eyes, reading aloud the fine print. 

What we learn from this Is that a politician will be a fire breathing tub thumper when it suits him or her. But as soon as implementation of firebrand tub thumping policies might impinge on donors and elite allies, they suddenly change their tune. 

What happened next. A carbon tax was defeated again. The next Environment Minister went to Berlin and was forced to agree with the idea of Australia joining other rich nations in negotiating emission cuts under the so-called Berlin mandate. And Australia then shat all over that, 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.

Also on this day: 

March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Australia

October 11, 1990 – Australian Federal Government makes climate promise, with fingers crossed

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 11, 1990, the Federal Government of Australia, under Prime Minister Bob Hawke, made its first “commitment” to reduce emissions.

The Commonwealth Government followed the states and also adopted the Toronto Target of a 20 per cent reduction, a target that in retrospect appears hopelessly optimistic. (Scorcher, p. 47)

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

The context was that the Second World Climate Conference was coming up. October 10th was the last cabinet meeting before Ros Kelly would be flying off to Geneva and she couldn’t go empty-handed. Meanwhile the environmental lobby wanted a strong target.

Previous Environment Minister Graham Richardson had tried to get the Toronto target agreed in May 1989, and had been shot down by Paul Keating.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians like targets – it makes them feel and look responsible and responsive. As long as there are caveats and loopholes, they’re happy enough. Other people are willing to sign on with that, more or less. The target is usually so far in advance that the politician will have at least left public office or if it’s a 30 or 40 year in the future target then they’ll be dead and they don’t care. Legacy games, that’s what these are, that’s all they are. But the other effect of the existence of a target is it allows middle-class people to snooze rather than get up on their hind legs.

What happened next

 Kelly went to the second World climate conference shortly after. The international negotiations began properly.

The Industry Commission also did a report about the economics of climate change this was one of the quid pro quo that Paul Keating, still at this stage Treasurer, had extracted for going along with the the Interim Planning Target Australia never took the steps it would have needed to meet the interim Planning Target and by 1995 it was a dead duck. As will our species be in another 20 or 30 years. You could almost say in fact that we are already functionally extinct. We just don’t know it yet but I digress…

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

Hudson, M. 2015 – https://theconversation.com/25-years-ago-the-australian-government-promised-deep-emissions-cuts-and-yet-here-we-still-are-46805

Categories
Australia

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

On this day, July 25, 1989, the Australian Minister for the Environment, Graham Richardson, gave a speech at the National Press Club. He admitted he had been blocked by Treasury in his bid to announce on a strong target for Australian emissions reductions.

“As the Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, yesterday [25 July 1989] talked tough to the States about using constitutional powers to override their decisions, he admitted he had been defeated by his Cabinet colleagues on a stronger federal environmental statement.

He confirmed that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, had been a prime mover in defeating his proposal that Australia aim to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent by 2005….

His frank comments at the National Press Club were clearly aimed at shielding himself against criticism from the conservation movement and the public that he did not fight hard enough for the environment.

But they might also add to tensions between himself and Mr Keating.

Referring to a report by Michelle Grattan, The Age newspaper’s chief political correspondent, that he had been rolled, Senator Richardson said that she had not been aware that a meeting between “Paul Keating and myself was to take place the morning after the Cabinet meeting to settle the wording of the statement of this issue”.

In Senator Richardson’s view this had resulted in considerable improvement –

“None the less, my old cobber was right in suggesting I was rolled on the setting of a target for a reduction of greenhouse gases,” he said.

“I had asked Cabinet to agree to the target agreed upon by the Toronto Conference, i.e. 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005.

“… When I put this target to our Cabinet, I came under close questioning by the economic ministers. I couldn’t sustain my argument with sufficient science.”

“I haven’t yet learnt how to lose gracefully so I was angry. I delved into the department’s records so that I could write to my Cabinet colleagues and demand a reconsideration. The cupboard, however was bare, and the letter was never written.”

Dunn, R. 1989. Cabinet reduces greenhouse target. Australian Financial Review, 26 July.

Why this matters. 

So. Many. Missed. Opportunities.

What happened next?

Australia got a carefully hedged announcement about emissions reductions, so the next Federal Environment Minister could go to the Second World Climate Conference – which was the starting gun for the international negotiations for a treaty – with something in her hand.

See here for more about that.

Richardson well…

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.