Tag: Greenpeace

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

December 5, 1994 – Taxing times for Australia, maybe…

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 5th, 1994, Keating’s government was supposed to discuss a carbon tax (but it got bumped).

“Conservation groups yesterday stepped up pressure on the Federal Government to adopt tougher measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Cabinet will consider the issue tomorrow.

In Yallourn, Greenpeace activists chained themselves across railway tracks used by coal trains which feed the Yallourn W power station.

They also unfurled a huge banner down the side of one of the station’s smoke stacks.

 Birnbauer, B. 1994. Greenies Mount Campaign For Greenhouse Tax. The Age, 6 December, p.3.

AND 

LOCAL coal prices would double and the $8 billion export coal industry would be rendered unprofitable if Federal Cabinet introduced a new carbon levy to help reduce greenhouse gas, according to a major study released yesterday.“… But the Australian Conservation Foundation also released a new report yesterday (5 December), prepared for the ACF as a submission to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

“On both a per capita basis and in terms of emissions per unit of GDP, Australia now has by far the highest level of all greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised world,” said ACF executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell”.

1994 Dwyer, M. 1994. Coal fire on carbon levy. The Australian Financial Review, 6 December, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been launching court cases to try to stop coal-fired power stations. They’ve not been successful, sadly, no fault of their own. And also there was a carbon tax proposed by Labor Environment Minister John Faulkner (with the campaign to get this happening spear-headed by ACF). So this protest can be seen as two birds one stone sort of.

[It’d be fun to get hold of Greenpeace newsletters magazines from 1994 to ‘95. See what they had to say.]

What we learn is that nonviolent direct action against coal-fired power stations has been going on for a long time. Sadly without much success. 

What happened next? Australia kept building coal-fired power stations. The carbon tax was defeated and the emissions kept climbing. We are all going to die. 

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: 

December 5, 1952 & 2009 London sees climatic pollution events

December 5, 2002 – Australian Government CCS support begins…

Categories
United Kingdom

November 20, 1988 – Will Thatcher pick up the Green Gauntlet? (spoiler: no, no she won’t)

Thirty six years ago, on this day, November 20th, 1988,

“To ask the Prime Minister what response she plans to make to the 30 point plan for environmental improvement in the United Kingdom set out in “The Green Gauntlet” document launched collectively by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace on 20 November.” [1988]

“The Green Gauntlet” – Hansard – UK Parliament

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the green groups in the UK had collaborated! This was not entirely unusual, but the breadth and depth of this collaboration was beyond average. They’d produce a wish list they called the Green Gauntlet that they threw down in front of Margaret Thatcher who had after all, just made a big noise at the Royal Society about the biggest experiment that we were conducting. And so it was a question of “was that all hot air, or would she actually do something about the green gauntlet?” I think we all know the answer.

What we learn: If you’re a politician at a national level at least, and you make big bold pronouncements, don’t be surprised if various green groups try to hold you to your word. And so it came to pass.

What happened next, Thatcher kept on giving nice speeches. She held a Cabinet meeting in April of ‘89, all about CO2. Her government shat on the idea of the Toronto Target. She made another nice empty speech at the United Nations General Assembly in November ‘89. And a year later, she was gone. 

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: 

November 20, 1930 – the Fox is born!! 

November 20, 1973 – “Is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Disintegrating?”

November 20, 1974 – BBC airs “The Weather Machine”

November 20, 2008 – Green capitalism flexes a (weak) BICEP

Categories
Australia

October 20, 2001 – Greenpeace nails Howard government over Kyoto and general climate assholery

Twenty three years ago, on this day, October 20th, 2001, four years to the day after they’d tried to give him solar panels, Greenpeace nailed John Howard.

Greenpeace noted in an October 20 [2001] media release, “In its ongoing attempt to avoid an agreement that has any legal consequences, Australia has tried to weaken the whole Protocol by substituting the word ‘should’ for the world ‘shall’ throughout the compliance agreement, weakening its legal power. [Compare Paris panic in 2015] Australia also wants to be able [to] play with its figures on forestry and land use, and is trying to get the rules written so it doesn’t even have to say exactly where the forests are.”

Jennifer Morgan from the World Wildlife Fund described Australia as the “leader of the backtrack camp”. The Climate Action Network awarded Australia a “Fossil of the Day” award for trying to gut the compliance regime.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-kyoto-protocol-rescued-again

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that here we were, a month after 911 and a month before the next Federal Election. John Howard was still being a prick on climate. Of course he was. He was breathing. He had defeated an emissions trading scheme. He had slowed down renewable energy as much as he could. And he’d already kind of promised that he wasn’t going to ratify Kyoto, (though he didn’t make that announcement until June of the following year.)

What we learn is that Greenpeace has been telling the truth to Howard and all of these politicians but you shall know the truth and the truth really shall not set you free. Anyone who tells you that the truth will set you free is either a god-bother, a helpless liberal or hasn’t been paying any attention.

What happened next? Howard won another two elections (2001 and 2004), caused more mayhem and despondency. And the emissions kept climbing. And the coal exports. And the LNG. And the profits accruing to a few companies. And here we are.

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 20, 1977 – Australian petition on solar energy and carbon dioxide build-up…

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

October 20, 1997 – Greenpeace tries to give John Howard solar panels…

Categories
Australia

September 12, 1994 – Greenpeace lays into Keating government over climate failure

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 12th, 1994, a nice article by a Greenpeace policy guy explains what is at stake. Is ignored, of course.

The Federal Government this week conceded that its current policies will not meet our international commitments to cut greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by 2005. The practical solutions needed to meet these targets are available, in the form of energy efficiency, solar power and public transport. What is missing is the political will to implement them.

Tarlo, K. 1994. Time to grasp greenhouse nettle. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September, p15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been banging on about climate change for a while. They had had a severe bust in their finance because people didn’t renew their membership in 1991-92 because the whole green issue seemed to have gone away after the Gulf War. They’d done a nice advert about Bush senior during his 1992 Australia visit and had also been doing legal challenges to new coal fired power stations without much success. 

And here was Keating shitting on climate policy, calling greenhouse an “amorphous issue”.

Anyway, the specific context was that Keating’s Environment Minister John Faulkner was proposing a carbon tax with the money to be spent on things like energy efficiency and solar energy r&d. 

What we learn is that you just have to stay in the game when the good times pass, but you just have to stay in the game. Keep your capacity to act going. Greenpeace managed it. Grassroots groups, not so much…

What happened next? Greenpeace kept going. Faulkner’s Carbon Tax died in February 1995. Keating was toast in ‘96. 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: 

September 12, 1958 – Letter in The Times about … carbon dioxide build-up

 September 12, 2003 – Newcastle Herald thinks the future of coal looks ‘cleaner’…

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.