Twenty years ago, on this day, July 30th, 2005, an article about just how much influence the fossil fuel lobby had on Australian energy and climate policy making appeared in the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.
“This week John Howard committed Australia to an American-led climate pact that groups the major greenhouse gas producers and aims to develop technological methods to minimise the detrimental side-effects of using coal to create energy. Today Richard Baker discloses how big industry exercised its influence to torpedo the Kyoto protocols.
“Australia’s former chief climate change official has accused the Federal Government of allowing the fossil fuel, energy and mining industries too much influence over its policies – including its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.
“Gwen Andrews, former chief executive of the Australian Greenhouse Office, told The Age she was never asked to brief Prime Minister John Howard on climate change during her four years in the role, at a time when Mr Howard was deliberating whether to ratify Kyoto.
“This week Australia confirmed its involvement in a US-led Asia-Pacific coalition to tackle climate change which rejects the Kyoto protocol and instead focuses on technology to make fossil fuels cleaner rather than restricting emissions from industry. China, India, South Korea and Japan are also involved.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-big-energy-won-the-climate-battle/2005/07/29/1122144020224.html and
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/industrys-hand-guides-climate-plan/2005/07/29/1122144024576.html?from=moreStories
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 the Australian political elite had decided reducing Australian domestic emissions was too much like hard work and would piss off their rich business mates by the early 1990s. Everything since then had been hand-wringing (Labor) or brazen “we don’t give a damn” (Liberal and National Party).
The specific context was the Howard government had set up an “Australian Greenhouse Office” in 1998, but had lacked interest in continuing the pretence, and abolished it – having achieved nothing, which was what Howard wanted – in 2004 or so.
What I think we can learn from this is that it is all kayfabe, all pretend. There are all sorts of pretend organisations, either there to spoil other efforts or give the impression that Something Is Being Done.
What happened next is that the following year, from about September, Howard’s terrible climate record finally began to catch up with him. But Labor were only very very marginally better, and only for a short while. Oh 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.
Also on this day:
July 30, 1968 – the UN says yes to an environment conference
July 30, 1979 – scientists warn US Senators about synfuels and carbon dioxide build-up
July 30, 1989 – UK Conservative politician warns “we have at most 25 years to take action.”
