Thirteen years ago, on this day, October 7, 2010, newly re-elected (sort of) Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided not to go ahead with her “citizens’ assembly” wheeze from the election campaign. There’ll be a multi-party climate change committee instead …
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in order to try to square the circle about climate change Gillard had proposed a climate assembly on the election campaign. This was widely perceived as a way of kicking the whole idea into the long grass clearly after negotiating with the independents and the Greens – legislating and emissions trading scheme was the price of their support. The whole climate assembly idea was simply no longer relevant, and so it was killed off. We got the multi-party committee on climate change. The liberals were invited to participate, but it was not in their interests to do so; they would rather be outside the tent pissing in …
What I think we can learn from this is that participatory structures like “climate assemblies” or “citizens assemblies” can be used to defer decision-making and to give everyone a sandpit to play in. It always comes back to the basic question of who is going to implement this and who’s going to monitor whether it gets done or not.
And if you’re not talking about that then all you’re doing is setting yourself up for failure down the road. But talking about that brings up lots of difficult questions about building sustained and sustainable groups, learning new skills, sharing their skills. Embedding those skills within a group at all tremendously difficult instead let’s just have the orgasmic moment.
What happened next
The multi-party committee on climate change came up with the ETS proposal and suggested the emissions trading the Climate Commission and so forth. And they all got along more or less but everybody knew that by 2013 ahead of the next election the happy families would fall apart, and the Greens would need to split off in order to shore up their vote. And Labor would also want to pin any failures on the Greens. And so it came to pass. Meanwhile the citizens’ assembly idea keeps getting put forward by naive or stupid or careerist dickheads.
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.
Eleven years ago, on this day, May 31, 2012, Australian climate minister Greg Combet mocks Opposition Leader Tony Abbott over the latter’s idiotic claims of the costs of a carbon “tax”.
“At which point Combet burst into song: ‘Cabramatta Parramatta, Wangaratta, Coolangatta-” but the punchline is: “Everywhere is doomed, man”.’ Paul Keating and Peter Costello would have been proud.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that all through the climate wars of 2010-11 Tony Abbott had made outlandish and unsupported claims about the economic costs to citizens and businesses of the Gillard Emissions Trading Scheme. Abbot claimed that various regional centres would be “wiped off the map,” that would be $150 pot roast, at cetera, et cetera.
These sorts of the sky-will-fall pronouncements, while ludicrous, will lend credibility simply by the fact that he was – God help us – Leader of the Opposition. And they were, of course, amplified by the deeply irresponsible, and in fact, malicious Murdoch media, who will now clutch their pearls,saying “nothing to do with us gov”. So Combet wanted to have a little fun.
What I think we can learn from this
What we learn is that lies and bullshit in the service of capital are always okay. God help you if you make one error of fact, or exaggeration, when trying to reduce the damage of industrial civilization, if and when that impinges on rich people’s ability to make more profit.
What happened next
Nowhere was wiped off the map. But the ALP did get wiped out, and Abbot became Prime Minister. That went well…
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.
Twelve years ago, on this day, February 10 2011, Australian Environment Minister Greg Combet had something to say…
“The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, has announced the establishment of an independent Climate Commission, appointing the leading science communicator – Professor Tim Flannery – as Chief Commissioner.
Combet said the Climate Commission would provide expert advice and information on climate change to the Australian community.
“The Climate Commission has been established by the Gillard government to provide an authoritative, independent source of information for all Australians,” he said. “It will provide expert advice on climate change science and impacts, and international action. It will help build the consensus required to move to a clean energy future.”
The Climate Commission would have a public outreach role, he said, to help build greater understanding and consensus about reducing Australia’s carbon pollution.
Other members of the Climate Commission are Professor Will Steffen, Professor Lesley Hughes, Dr Susannah Eliott, Gerry Hueston and Roger Beale. The commissioners have expertise in a range of areas including climate change science, science communications, business, public policy and economics.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard was trying to make a move in the climate wars which had sprung up from late 2009 when the Liberal Party’s Tony Abbott decided to call the science of climate change “absolute crap.” He became a lightning rod for a lot of people’s dissatisfaction, especially in the National Party. The idea of a commission was, I believe, that of Christine Milne of the Greens, not that Labor would necessarily be willing to admit that; Labor had been forced into an uneasy collaboration with the Greens because of the finely balanced 2010 election. The Greens insisted that Labor grasp the climate change nettle again, rather than kicking it all into the long grass.
What I think we can learn from this
These sort of top-down groups of experts are useful, but they need to be supplemented by vibrant, long lasting civil society organisations and social movement organisations. However, that requires people to innovate and do stuff differently and not fall victim to the usual movement pathologies such as the smugosphere, the emotacycle, ego-foddering etc.
What happened next
The Commission was destroyed by Tony Abbott, and then had no trouble setting up as “The Climate Council” in September 2013 (see this Guardian article).
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
