Tag: Greenpeace

Categories
Australia

April 9, 1991 – Peter Walsh goes nuts, urges BHP to sue Greenpeace

Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 9th, 1991, ex Federal Treasurer Peter Walsh shows he is basically a demented thug. 

The former Minister for Finance, Peter Walsh, attacked Australia’s major conservation groups yesterday saying he hoped Australia’s largest company, BHP, would use common law to bankrupt Greenpeace for interfering with seismic testing.

Senator Walsh said the major environmental groups were trying to subvert economic development — an objective they had pursued with some success.

Launching a book which emphasised market solutions to environmental problems, Senator Walsh said extreme elements of the conservation movement were more concerned with “destroying” industrial capitalism than protecting the environment.

“One wonders how long a country which is unquestionably some distance down the Argentinian road will continue to allow organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation to subvert economic growth, and particularly the growth in the traded goods sector, to the extent that they do,” he said.

A long-time critic of the conservation movement, Senator Walsh fired a broadside at Greenpeace over its recent campaign to stop BHP’s oil exploration in Bass Strait. The organisation argued that the seismic tests would disturb whales which breed in the area.

He accused Greenpeace of hypocrisy in trying to stop oil exploration using petrol-powered rubber dinghies and a diesel-powered mother-ship.

“I hope that BHP sues Greenpeace under the common law and collects damages large enough to bankrupt the organisation.”

The book, Markets, Resources and theEnvironment, was produced by the Tasman Institute which Senator Walsh acknowledged many in the Labor Party considered “only marginally less obnoxious” than the League of Rights, or the Queensland National Party.

Lamberton, H. 1991. Walsh attacks greenies. Canberra Times, 10 April, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 


The context was that there were battles going on over the making of environmental policy. The Ecologically Sustainable Development process was unfolding. There were negotiations, that Australia was part of, for the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit the following year.

Walsh was no longer in Parliament, and so was less constrained and was becoming the batshit crazy loon in public that he probably had been for a while. And he was hoping that mining giant BHP would beat up on Greenpeace. BHP was a bit more canny than that. Greenpeace was fat with new membership, (but it couldn’t keep them and would plummet. afterwards). 

What happened next? Well, Walsh went on to be one of the founding members of the Lavoisier Group. Bless it. 

What we can learn from this is that recently retired politicians have stood up resentments that they like to get off their chest, and it makes good newspaper copy. And they’re suffering from Relevance Deprivation Syndrome… So you get to see fireworks, at least for a while. 

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: 

 April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

April 9, 2008 – US school student vs dodgy (lying) text books

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 7, 2005, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Greens call on the gov to rule out nuclear energy and release a report “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Howard government had asked a pro-nuclear scientist to do a review of nuclear power. This was after Howard and Bush had had one of their periodic meetings. The review made the same point that nuclear power was not going to be economic for Australia, and take too long to develop.

But it was also a useful “dead cat” strategy for Howard because he could wedge greens – he knew that some of them are pronuclear. Further, he knew it will take up time, energy and bandwidth and therefore distract from what he was (not) doing on climate.

But this is tricksy, and eventually the magician plays the same trick so many times that people spot how he does it and stop being impressed or even amused. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this is that nuclear is always a good “go to” if you want to avoid talking about what needs doing in the here and right now. And allow you to keep doing what you’re doing.

What happened next

Nuclear was not developed. It will not be developed in Australia because the population is not big enough and there aren’t enough big electricity consumers and anyway everyone has got wind and solar and the nuclear boat has sailed (and I don’t think the nuclear submarines will sail either. But who knows.)

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
Activism Australia

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 11, 2005, Australian activists took action.

On 11 August 2005 approximately 50 student environmentalists and Greenpeace volunteers unfurled a “Quit Coal” banner outside the plant while 12 activists occupied the brown coal pit, with two locking themselves to coal dredging equipment. This action drew worldwide attention to Hazelwood’s CO2 emissions and their harmful impacts on the global climate. (Wikipedia on Hazelwood)

See also https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-08-11/police-remove-greenpeace-mine-activists/2078834

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

The context was that the Victorian Government was continuing to talk about expanding and continuing with Hazelwood, which was burning brown coal. This, while abundant, was truly filthy. So Greenpeace were doing their best to keep the issue on the agenda, and to accelerate the demise of Hazelwood. 

What I think we can learn from this

Transitions take a long time. Involve a lot of blood sweat and tears.

What happened next

It took a long while. But finally, they won. Hazelwood is Toast and Victoria is going for wind and renewables.

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
Arctic Russia

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 2, 2007, Russia planted a flag on Arctic sea-bed

 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctic

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Putin wanted to throw his weight around and planting the flag on the Arctic seabed was a good “strongman” gimmick. The Arctic was, as long predicted, warming quickly, and literally changing the map of the world. Resources, wars, land-grabs, the usual stuff…

What I think we can learn from this is that the Westphalian system (created at the end of the 30 years war) is a failure, We have known that the tensions about borders and the “Law of the Sea”/”Law of the atmosphere” have been growing and growing. We’d seen it with acid rain then with ozone than with climate.

What happened next

The Arctic kept melting. People kept exploring for oil. Greenpeace got arrested. And Putin? Putin kept being a quality human being.

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
France New Zealand

: July 10, 1985 – French state commits terrorist act

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, July 10, 1985 French secret service agents planted bombs that led to the sinking of the Greenpeace ship the “Rainbow Warrior”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the French state was getting pissed off with Greenpeace’s activities around nuclear testing in the Pacific, and thought it would be a good idea to treat a non-state actor like a state and go and blow up its assets. The death came from the photographer wanting to go back on board to get his cameras, against advice.

What I think we can learn from this, and certainly what I learned in 1985, when I was not quite an adult, is that states behave terribly, especially the intelligence services. And if they can’t win the argument, then they resort to, well, blowing shit up.

What happened next: The French intelligence service operatives got caught, sentenced to minimal jail time and then released. Greenpeace didn’t go away – you can judge the strength of an actor by the nature of its enemies, and the lengths to which it is willing to go.

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
Ignored Warnings

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 3, 1994, news reached the colonies of an event that had actually happened on Wednesday June 1… – Greenpeace International’s release of ‘The Climate Timebomb’.

Anon, 1994. World is facing a climate time bomb: Greenpeace. Canberra Times, 3 June, page 7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Greenpeace trying to get people to understand that the increasing number of weather disasters and extremes are in fact a climate time bomb. The United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change had been ratified. And by enough countries the UNFCCC itself the text was no great shakes and Greenpeace was well aware that more needed to be done. And were trying to get insurers and reinsurers interested. 

What I think we can learn from this is that using “natural disasters” to convince people that climate is a pressing issue hasn’t really worked. Because people have short memories, because of shifting baselines, because people don’t want to stare into the abyss. And because until recently attributing any specific disaster or event to climate was problematic at best. 

What happened next

Greenpeace kept trying to do what it could on climate. And you can have criticisms – I do – but they’ve been on the side of the angels as opposed to the fossil fuel shills.

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

February 17, 2003 – Bob Carr says John Howard showing poor leadership (too generous!)

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 17, 2003, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr (long aware of climate problems) accuses John Howard of merely going along with the US in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Bob Carr has today released a new report, sponsored by three Labor states, that he says shows that the cost to Australia of not joining the treaty will be higher than joining it. It claims that countries that do not ratify the agreement on greenhouse gas emissions will lose out on future investment opportunities in renewable energies. 

Mr Carr has also proposed setting up a new office in New South Wales to oversee the use of renewable energy and carbon emissions.

He says if the Prime Minister will not act then he is forced to show leadership on the issue. “I think it’s not unfair to say of our Prime Minister, that all his instincts are very, very conservative and he’s going along with America,” he said. “He’s going along with America but if there was ever a case for running a policy independent of Washington this is it.”   

ABC, 2003 Carr accuses Howard of poor leadership. 17 February 2003

Meanwhile, on the same day, Greenpeace tried to widen the existing split within the Business Council of Australia over the Kyoto Protocol….

SYDNEY, Feb 17, AAP – One of Australia’s big four banks has indicated its support for an international treaty to cut greenhouse gases.

Greenpeace today said initial findings of its survey of Business Council of Australia (BCA) members revealed Westpac supported the aims and objectives of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol

AAP. 2003. Westpac supports Kyoto Protocol – Greenpeace. Australian Associated Press Financial News Wire, 17 Feb

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

John Howard was cuddling up to George Bush on everything – the attack on Iraq, trashing climate diplomacy, you name it.  Carr was busy still trying to turn New South Wales into some sort of exemplar, at least for carbon trading (thus the report and the Gore-schmoozing).

Meanwhile, Greenpeace was having to do WWF’s job of splitting the business sector, because WWF was being very friendly with Howard (though to be fair, later in 2003, WWF tried to grow a pair. Sort of).

What I think we can learn from this

Finding/enlarging splits between government and business and splitting apart the (usually superficial) unity of business is something that NGOs can be good at.  Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation kept at it, and it sort of bore fruit in 2006. Strange fruit, but fruit. Sort of (no, not really, but what are you going to do?)

What happened next

Howard never signed up for Kyoto, to his cost in 2007

Various “pro”-climate business groupings have come and gone since 2003.  Lots of warm words, not much else, though they would all dispute that, naturally.

Carr stopped being Premier in 2005, and later served as Julia Gillard’s Foreign Affairs Minister

And we all lived hotly ever after, until we didn’t.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Australia

July 3, 2008 – Greenpeace activists enter New South Wales coal power station

On this day, July 3, in 2008, 27 Greenpeace activists entered the 2,640 megawatts Eraring Power Station site north of Sydney to call for an energy revolution, and took direct action to stop coal from being burnt.

“Twelve protesters shut down and chained themselves to conveyors while others climbed onto the roof to paint ‘Revolution’ and unfurled a banner reading ‘Energy Revolution – Renewables Not Coal’. The action preceded the Australian government’s climate change advisor Professor Ross Garnaut’s delivery of his Draft Climate Change Review on July 4”

[sorry don’t know the source]

This text and photo is from here

Greenpeace activists, including an ex-miner, block the coal supply to the Eraring coal-fired power station by locking on to the coal conveyors. Eraring is Australia’s most polluting coal-fired power station and is responsible for 13% of Australia’s greenhouse pollution. The old and inefficient plant sends nearly 20 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution into the atmosphere every year. Each hour the coal supply is blockaded, prevents 2,000 tonnes of CO2 being released. As the government’s climate change advisor, Ross Garnaut, prepares to deliver his draft review in Canberra, Greenpeace calls for urgent action on climate change. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd must deliver policies that upscale renewable energy and start replacing dirty coal-fired power.

Why this matters. 

We resist. Weakly, inadequately, but we resist.

What happened next?

The power station is finally being decommissioned.  (Not much) better late than never.

Categories
United Kingdom

May 16, 2006 – UK Prime Minister Tony Blair goes nuclear…

On 16 May 2006 UK Prime Minister Tony Blair speech gave a speech at a Confederation of British Industry event, basically saying that regardless of the outcome of the then-current “consultation” about nuclear energy, his government would forge ahead anyway.

The 2003 Energy White Paper had been very lukewarm on nuclear indeed, and this speech by Blair was the culmination of a determined lobbying fightback…

Why this matters

We need to remember that most “consultations” are window-dressing. They’ll be heavily publicised if they go the “right” way, and used as a stick to beat those opposed as “anti-democratic”. If the results aren’t what those in power wanted, they’ll be buried (released at 5pm on a Friday afternoon etc) and dismissed as “having been hi-jacked by well-organised special interests.”

What happened next

Greenpeace took the government to court over the shonkiness of the consultation, and in February 2007 they won, for what it is worth.

Despite all the plans and announcements, the nuclear power stations were not built – one in the last 12 years, massively over-budget.

Meanwhile, energy efficiency and onshore wind are ignored as ever., and the overarching question of energy demand reduction is deep in the hole.