Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 11th, 2001,
The Federal Government is spending $3.9 million on an advertising campaign on greenhouse gases featuring celebrity gardener Don Burke, two months after criticism of its $3.6 million ad campaign on the Natural Heritage Trust.
In the ads, on prime-time television and in newspapers, Burke says: “I love greenhouses. Wouldn’t want to live in one, though … and that’s why the Commonwealth Government is doing something about it.”
“They’re investing $200 million a year to lower greenhouse gases. They’re working with over 300 major companies, helping them to clean up their act.”
He goes on to introduce 10 ways Australians can make a difference including turning off the TV at the power point, instead of using the remote, washing clothes in cold water and taking shorter showers.
The Opposition’s environment spokesman, Senator Nick Bolkus, said yesterday the ad campaign was an “outrageous abuse of taxpayers’ money”.
… The Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office confirmed the full cost of the advertising campaign was $3.9 million, with the ads to run for six weeks.
2001 Clennell, A. 2001. Pitched Battle Over Don Burke Ads. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 March, p.5.
AND
CELEBRITY green thumb Don Burke yesterday defended his decision to promote the Federal Government’s anti-greenhouse gas policy on television, saying he was no apologist for the Liberals.
The Opposition and the Australian Democrats voiced concern over Mr Burke’s promotion of the Government’s approach to greenhouse problems in a $3.9 million print and broadcast campaign.
But Mr Burke, who did the job free of charge, praised the Government for making a start and said he would also support similar Labor efforts.
“I knew in doing this … the Opposition would come back with various statements. As I say, I’m not an apologist for the Liberal Party.”
Daily Telegraph, March 14, 2001 p20
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Liberal Party had gone into the 1990 federal election with a more ambitious carbon dioxide emissions reduction target than the governing Labor party, but this had not gotten them over the line; they very narrowly lost, and felt that they had been betrayed by green groups, especially the Australian Conservation Foundation. This exacerbated pre-existing suspicions and antipathy to all things environmental. In 1996 the Liberals had come back to power, and new Prime Minister John Howard had made it pretty clear that he had contempt for the issue of climate change and those pushing it. I could go on for days….
The specific context was that thanks to the Millennium drought and so forth, concerns about climate change were growing. And so as an attempt at perception management, Howard had used taxpayer money to do an advertising campaign fronted by then popular TV personality Don Burke, who did gardening shows.
What I think we can learn from this is that even assholes, or especially assholes, will use public funds to try and fool the public. It’s like that cartoon of the two fat men at the table, and one of them cuts off the tail of the dog nearby and feeds the dog its own tail. It’s actually worse than that, of course. Anyway…
What happened next the Don Burke controversy blew up because Labor and the Democrats (the Democrats still a thing) were not at all happy, and launched parliamentary investigations and so on. The Greens were just becoming a thing by then.
An investigation started when journalist Tracey Spicer announced on Twitter that she was investigating the sexual harassment by powerful men in the Australian entertainment industry. Spicer said, “One name kept recurring – Don Burke”.[8][9] On 26 November 2017, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Sydney Morning Herald published a joint investigative piece containing claims that Burke had sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and bullied women throughout his television career. The report quotes alleged female victims, as well as both female and male witnesses, including David Leckie—the former head of the Nine Network, on which Burke’s programs aired—comparing Burke to American producer Harvey Weinstein.[8]Kate McClymont, Lorna Knowles, Tracey Spicer and Alison Branley received a Walkley Award for their investigation.[10]
Other former Channel Nine executives went “on the record” to comment on the allegations.
Sam Chisholm said, “Don Burke was a disgrace because of his behaviour internally and externally. This precluded him from ever becoming a major star.”[11]
Peter Meakin said, “There was gossip about inappropriate language and he was incredibly demanding. If someone fell short of the mark, he would excoriate them. He was unforgiving.”[11]
In response to the allegations, Burke released a lengthy statement which said he was “deeply hurt and outraged at the false and defamatory claims” and suggested the “baseless” claims were from former employees who “bear grudges against me”. Burke also stated that he has had a “life-long opposition to sexism and misogyny”.[11]
Burke claimed to have self-diagnosed Asperger’s syndrome and, in a media interview[12] following revelations about his alleged misconduct, said that these “genetic failings” were to blame for some of his conduct. In response, Autism Awareness Australia stated that Burke’s claim was “beyond appalling” and “gobsmacking”.[13]
Following the interview on A Current Affair,[17] one of the women sued Burke for defamation on the grounds that he said she had lied about the sexual harassment allegation and that she made the false allegation as part of a “witch hunt” during the interview. She lost the case on the grounds that Justice David Mossop did not find Burke’s denial in the interview was credible, so viewers would not conclude that she was a liar or part of a witch hunt, and thus was not defamed.[18][19]
And the emissions kept climbing despite all the advertising campaign bullshit, Howard tried again in 2007 with “climate clever” adverts. But by then, he was toast.
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.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, October 11th, 2000,
“At a UN climate change conference in France in September, the Australian delegates argued that countries should monitor their own progress on greenhouse gas emissions rather than establishing an international monitoring body. An Australian delegate objected to a proposal to establish a consultative process to ensure continuity of information exchange, to facilitate international cooperation and to contribute to the assessment of demonstrable progress.
If such a body was established, Australian delegates argued, it should be prohibited from responding to questions about a country’s performance except for questions posed by the country in question.
An Australian delegate also opposed proposals for financial penalties, or any binding consequences whatsoever, for countries failing to meet their targets.”
Green, J. 2000. Greenhouse sceptics lose the plot. Green Left Weekly, 11 October.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 that Australia had been nakedly criminal on climate policy since 1996 (before that they tried to cloak it). Although they’d extorted a fantastically generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (COP 3) and then signed it, they had not ratified. And everyone knew that if he could avoid ratifying it, Prime Minister John Howard would.
The specific context was that Australia was once again trying to find ways to carve out even more generous conditions…
What I think we can learn from this is that once an untrustworthy and thieving asshole, always an untrustworthy and thieving asshole.
What happened next – in 2002 John Howard went public with the not ratifying Kyoto thing, to nobody’s surprise.
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 23rd, 2007,
After ten years of being a climate sceptic, John Howard begrudgingly pronounced himself a climate change realist. But while the rhetoric has changed, Government policy hasn’t. Australia’s greenhouse pollution continues to soar as the renewables industry slowly but surely packs its bags and heads overseas. Meanwhile the coal industry continues to expand with the help of massive public subsidies.
Anon, 2007. Govt climate ad campaign not so clever. Greenpeace 23 September.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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 Australian policymakers had been shitting on climate policy since the beginning.
The specific context was that Prime Minister John Howard, an enemy of sanity on climate, had been forced, in late 2006, to attempt a “reverse ferret” on climate policy. He’d appointed a panel to produce the “Shergold Report” on emissions trading. This convinced no-one, and with an election coming what could be more natural than to spend taxpayers’ money to propagandise them.
What I think we can learn from this. Stupid Evil is gonna Stupid Evil, and expect a subsidy to Stupid Evil from the public. And mostly, Stupid Evil gets what it wants.
What happened next – Howard lost the November 2007 election and, indeed, his own seat.
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.
The Australian federal government led by Labor’s Anthony Albanese has just announced an “emissions reduction” target for 2035 of “62-70%.” You can read about the ins and outs of this in Crikey, Crikey, the Guardian, the Conversation, the ABC , the Australia Institute, Climate Council etc.
As the last notes if the point of the exercise is “to contribute to keeping heating well below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, after which climate impacts become especially catastrophic and severe” well then “to have a strong chance of meeting this goal, Australia would need to set a net zero target for 2035).“
In this piece I (who the hell am I? (!) want to step back from the (important and justified criticism of Team Fossi, sorry Team Albanese and take a more historical perspective.
The essay below is divided into four sections. The first three are historical – covering 1988-1996 (“let’s make promises”), 1996-2014 (“let’s NOT make promises”/”let’s get this off the table so I can have a government”) and 2014 to the present (“A brain Paris-ite ate my brain”). The final section – “what next/what does it all mean” – suggests kayfabe is no longer an adequate epithet, but “the peek-a-bo Fafocene” might just work.
Period 1: 1988 to 1996 – “let’s make promises, but with caveats”
The possibility of carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere really screwing things up first appears in a parliamentary document in September 1969
Things changed after 1985. Atmospheric scientists had high credibility and media reach because of the recently discovered “Ozone Hole”. A scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, set the ‘greenhouse effect’ running. Australia was well-positioned to respond, thanks to Barry Jones, the Minister for Science. He had set up a “Commission for the Future” (in the face of hostility and derision from his Labor colleagues, of course) and it had worked with the CSIRO’s Atmospheric Physics division to start to inform people via “The Greenhouse Project”.
1988 was the year the issue properly exploded, internationally and nationally. In June an international conference in Canada on “The Changing Atmosphere” ended with the “Toronto Target” – the proposal being that rich nations commit to reducing their carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2005, against a 1988 baseline.
Various State governments expressed tentative interest. Then Federal Minister for the Environment Graham Richardson tried to get Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s Cabinet to adopt it in May 1989, before being shot down by Treasurer Paul Keating..
The Hawke Government prevaricated. It won the March 1990 Federal Election, which was agonisingly close for the Liberals (who had gone to that election with a proposal to go BEYOND the Toronto target and do the 20 per cent cut by the year 2000).
Matters came to a head though, in October. The Second World Climate Conference was about to happen, and was regarded as the starting gun for negotiations for an international climate treaty. Australia, represented by new Environment Minister Ros Kelly, could not turn up in Geneva empty-handed. A compromise was hammered out, known as the Interim Planning Target which intoned the relevant dates and numbers and then added
“…the Government will not proceed with measures which have net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia’s trade competitiveness in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse-gas-producing countries.”
Where did these caveats come from? There’s a lovely anecdote in “The business response to climate change: case studies of Australian interest groups“ the 2005 PhD thesis of Guy Pearse (not the actor) which I can’t help but add –
{I mean it strikes me that the policy trajectory going way back to the late eighties—we were headed in one direction when we had that interim planning target, and then there was a sudden shift in trajectory and pretty much we have stayed on it ever since. Because while the media coverage in recent times would give the impression that the Howard Government have been the one that has made the big shift and been the international pariah and so on—you can actually trace that line back in terms of policy to a cabinet decision when Kerin was around and Richo was around.}
That’s right, that’s right.
{And there was a battle in cabinet where they said—OK, we will keep this interim planning target but always on the proviso that Australia will not take any action which jeopardised the economy.}
Dick Wells wrote those words with Craig Emerson.
{And they have been pretty much the same ever since. The trajectory has been pretty much the same?}
Craig Emerson was the economics adviser to Keating at the time—and he is now a shadow minister, right. They sat—I can remember the cabinet meeting very clearly—because Ros Kelly was banging them around the ears—and called them liars and all sorts of things—but the cabinet decision that went up was rejected and I can remember it was about eight o’clock at night and Craig and Dick were sitting in the conference room in John Kerin’s office trying to redraft this cabinet decision. And Keating wanted to go and have dinner with his family and so Keating is standing over them—he is not prime minister at this stage—he is the treasurer. And he is standing around over the top saying – ‘come on you bastards.’ And they are trying to draft these caveats. All right—and so they drafted those caveats, and so then they reconvened cabinet and they signed off on the cabinet decision. And, Ros Kelly never forgave them. [13;415–32]
Footnote 699, page 355
As green groups noted at the time, there was so much hedging as to make this meaningless.
In the end, the treaty signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 included nothing like the Toronto Target, which had very few national governments behind it. The treaty (what we now call the UNFCCC) had no targets and timetables for any emissions reductions by anyone, thanks to the US threatening to veto the whole deal if these were included. The closest that we came to an official target was an aspiration to return emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.
Climate policy, and especially emissions reductions policies were definitively destroyed when Keating came from the back-benches to topple a tired Bob Hawke, who had no answers to the new Liberal leader, one John Hewson (he has changed his tune on the importance of environmental issues – at the time, he clearly did not rate them as important).
A “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” was utterly toothless and meaningless. It seemed not to matter to anyone in power. However, the UNFCCC was ratified more quickly than had been anticipated and this meant that the “Conferences of the Parties” (COPs) were going to start sooner rather than later. Australia was in an awkward position – with a clearly inadequate set of policy tools. Keating told people not to concentrate on the “amorphous” issue of climate change. A carbon tax was proposed, and given a boost by evidence from the first “Greenhouse Gas Inventory” not only was Australia never going to hit the Toronto Target, it wasn’t even anywhere near returning to 1990 levels by 2000.
1996 to 2013: “let’s not even pretend”/”dammit, I have to push through a policy”
The second period is a decade of determined resistance to action for a decade, followed by a few years of extraordinary policy chaos and bloodletting.
John Howard became Prime Minister in March 1996. He was and remains the poster-child for “anti-reflexivity.” In April 1997 he told ABC radio that Australia should never have signed, let alone ratified the UNFCCC. But the previous government had said yes to the “Berlin Mandate” in April 1995, meaning at the third COP rich nations were expected to turn up with pledges to reduce their emissions. Howard sent emissaries around the world trying to convince other nations’ governments that Australia was a special case (“differentiation”), and deserved exemptions. His position sparked indifference, contempt and occasionally outright mockery. However, through sheer intransigence and exhaustion, Australia managed to get (I would say ‘extort’ an emissions “reduction” target of… wait for it… an 8 per cent increase in its emissions. The Environment Minister received a standing ovation from his Liberal and National Party colleagues. And in fact, it was worse than that – the 108% figure was de jure, but de facto the increase in emissions was, thanks to a clause pushed through at 3am in a conference hall in Kyoto, Japan, as delegates fell asleep, meant Australia really had 130% of its 1990 emissions as its “target.”
Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol then became a bizarre symbol of virtue/vice, despite the fact that the whole thing was a totally inadequate farce. There’s a good 2010 academic article you can read about this, if you’re so inclined – The Veil of Kyoto and the politics of greenhouse gas mitigation in Australia.
Anyway, in September 2006 the climate issue returned to the Australian political scene, really for the first time since 1990 (this is not to throw shade at those activists who tried to get it onto the agenda). John Howard was then forced into one of his U-turns, and appointed a group of fossil-fuel representatives to work with a civil servant to produce a study on the possibility of an Emissions Trading Scheme (something Howard had personally vetoed in 2003, btw).
The point here is that if you are going to have an emissions trading scheme, then questions of what you are aiming at, in terms of percentage reduction of emissions, or a temperature target or whatever, can only be fudged a little bit. The whole point (in THEORY) of an ETS is that you only have a certain number of “emissions reduction certificates” available, and the price of these goes up as they become more scarce (again, in THEORY).
So, if you’re only planning a small “reduction”, lots of certificates can be issued… (keeps the price low, but the consultants and bankers can still get rich, and big polluters can pretend to be pure at low cost. What’s not to love?)
Kevin Rudd, newly minted Labor leader, swept the 2007 election, started the process of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and took himself off to the COP in Bali, Indonesia. There the very first cracks started to show, because the Europeans wanted him to sign up to a 25 per cent in emissions by 2020, and he dug his heels in at the 5 per cent he’d already committed to.
But EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas says he has voiced regret to a top Rudd adviser that the PM did not back an EU-led proposal calling for carbon emission cuts by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 from 1990 levels.
The next few years – 2007 to 2012 – are scarcely believable – it makes Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs look like a particularly saccharine Disney rom-com. There were all sorts of announcements of provisional targets, by 2050 (still a long way off, of course, unlike now). Guy Pearse’s Quarterly Essay, Quarry Vision, is a great read on all this.
Ultimately, in order to form a government after the 2010 election that had resulted in a hung parliament, Julia Gillard, who had toppled Rudd, had to agree to introduce an emissions trading scheme (Rudd had failed in this, and had been too cowardly/chaotic to go for a double dissolution election).
Again, the question of what the percentage reduction target was there, with the Greens wanting a higher target, but knowing that this would mean a higher carbon tax (remember, the theoretical point of a price on carbon is to drive behaviour change – for individuals, investors, technology etc)
Gillard got her “Clean Energy Future” legislation through, but Opposition Tony Abbott, helped enormously by the Murdoch media, had destroyed it and her. As Prime Minister he repealed the ETS (but was unable to do away with some other things in the package, so they were slowly white-anted).
2014 to present (“a brain Paris-ite ate my brain. Why is it so hot?”
The whole UNFCCC process had almost collapsed at the December 2009 Copenhagen conference (it turns out the Danes somewhat over-estimated their hosting capacity and diplomatic prowess). The French had stepped in, and basically the whole thing got saved because an old and discredited (and discreditable) proposal got dusted off. “Pledge and Review” meant that nations would make promises, then get together periodically to see how they were doing and whether the latest science meant they really needed to up their pledges.
When proposed in 1990 this was laughed at as an obvious recipe for inaction and failure. By 2013 or 2014 it had become “a pragmatic way forward and how dare you extremist virtue signallers allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”
This being the UN, there had to be a three or four letter acronym, to make it all sound official and effective, and to bewilder the ignorant herd. And the acronym was “INDC” – intended nationally determined contribution..
So the whole pretend aspect of target-setting has basically been institutionalised. The loopholes and bullshitting opportunities are endless. That’s really all you need to know about this latest (last?) phase.
Under Tony Abbott, we had this.
“On 11 August 2015, the Government announced that Australia will reduce greenhouse gas emissions so they are 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. According to the Australian Department of the Environment’s 2030 target document:
[i]n terms of reduction in emissions per capita and the emissions intensity of the economy, Australia’s emissions intensity and emissions per person [will] fall faster than many other economies…emissions per person [will] fall[s] by 50–52 per cent between 2005 and 2030 and emissions per unit of GDP by 64–65 per cent.”
A few weeks later, he was toppled by Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull clung to power, but then had to abandon his “Notional Energy Guarantee”-
“Australia removed requirements from its National Energy Guarantee plan that would have mandated that greenhouse emissions from its power industry decrease by 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.”
It didn’t save him, and he was replaced by Scott Morrison, a flat earth… sorry, flat out marketing genius.
“Morrison went to Glasgow armed with the same short-term emissions reduction target (a 26-28% cut compared with 2005) set under Tony Abbott six years ago.
The prime minister was in the awkward position of having to tell the summit in his speech that the country would probably make a 35% emissions cut by 2030 – official government projections said so – but that he would not commit to doing it.”
But then, in 2022, Everything Changed and the adults who care about the world and are willing to stand up to the fossil fuel companies took power.
Yes, sarcasm is indeed the lowest form of wit. But it is all the lowest form of politician deserve, isn’t it? I think there is a strong and getting stronger case to be made that Albanese is a bigger climate criminal than John Howard.
Before I get philosophical, let’s check in on Australia’s annual C02 emissions
If we’d listened to the scientists and activists who were pushing the Toronto Target back in 1988, and taken those actions (one percent reduction per annum would more or less have done it, and that was achievable via energy efficiency, a bit of light fuel-switching etc) then we would STILL be facing serious problems with the climate. But they would, I suspect, be manageable.
That, combined with sink failure (deforestation, ocean acidification) has meant that the blanket of carbon dioxide that traps heat on our planet (in moderation a very good thing) isn’t 350ppm as it was when those people met in Toronto, but about 428ppm, and climbing rapidly.
We’re in such deep and hot shit, and most of us have no idea.
Targets functioned (we should begin to talk in the past tense when referring to meaningful climate policy, imo) as a way of soothing ourselves that matters were in hand, that pragmatic action could be taken. It was a way – as per the Veil of Kyoto article – of not talking about wider deeper transformations that were becoming unavoidable because the incremental had been thrown in the bin. Targets still function that way, I guess.
Kayfabe or peekaboo?
For the last few years I have talked about climate policy, and climate activism (see my review of a dreadful documentary here) as “kayfabe” – the make-believe that wrestlers and fans engage in willingly and knowingly, about the “characters” (faces and heels) being real.
I think that’s no longer adequate as a metaphor, for three reasons. First, because kayfabe can continue indefinitely. Second, because there’s a kind of enjoyment to it. Third, because it takes place between consenting adults.
I think I am going to shift to “peekabo” – where a child covers its eyes with its hand and thinks that because it can’t see you, you can’t see it. Most children grow out of this delusion by, what, age 5? We (2) are playing peekabo with the climate (and therefore other systems) of the only habitable planet for many light years. It’s aggravatingly stupid, and has proven fatal, we just don’t know it yet.
There is a brilliant cartoon by the brilliant David Pope – “you are now leaving the Holocene” (see interview with him here)
My bona fides – I did a PhD that covered the period 1989-2012, looking specifically at four episodes of public (incumbent) opposition to carbon pricing (there were other, more private ones).
The whole question of who “we” is in this sentence and others above is for another time. #NotAllHumans
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
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.
Twenty eight years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1997,
John Howard was too busy meeting Baroness Thatcher to attend Earth Summit II in New York this week. It was a controversial decision in light of our position on greenhouse gases,
FIRST thing on Monday morning, as Earth Summit II began in New York, the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, brought his huge bulk into the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly – the venue for the biggest environment conference since the Rio Summit in 1992.
A few minutes later, the US Vice- President, Al Gore, made a passionate but carefully worded speech welcoming delegates from over 70 countries. For a few minutes he even wandered into the throng on the floor of the General Assembly, and took a seat with the rest of the US delegation.
Both of these leaders were having a back-slappingly, handshakingly good time. Both seemed to be making the most of the opportunity to meet and talk with other leaders. For both men the reason for their presence was because they have a political imperative to make a statement about their concern for the environment.
But Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, did not appear. To the disappointment of conservationists, he decided to send his Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill.
On Monday [23rd June], Howard was meeting his hero and mentor, the former British prime minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher.
Woodford, J. 1997. Leaders Warm To The Task. Sydney Morning Herald, June 28.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC was due to be held in December. Rich countries were supposed to turn up with emissions reductions pledges. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard was really not up for that…
What I think we can learn from this is that John Howard is a terrible human being. But one who was enabled by other terrible human beings.
What happened next. Australia managed to extort an incredibly generous deal at Kyoto, and Howard STILL refused to ratify it.
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.
Eighteen Years ago, on this day, May 10th, 2007, the Australian Labor Party’s Treasury guy, Wayne Swan, makes fun of Peter Costello because the latter acquiesced, four years previousy, in the destruction of an emissions trading scheme that the entire LNP cabinet had been okay with. Well, entire but for one guy – Prime Minister John Howard…. By 2007 this was perfect ammunition for Kevin Rudd and his cronies, who were using climate as a stick to beat Howard with.
10 May 2007 Swan versus Costello in Parliament on the 2003 emissions trading scheme
Mr SWAN (2:11 PM) —My question is directed to the Treasurer, and I refer him to his interview on The 7.30 Report on the ABC on budget night where he refused to answer a question on past Treasury advice on carbon trading.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right will come to order.
Mr SWAN —It was a spectacular performance by the Treasurer.
The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley will commence his question again, and he will be heard.
Mr SWAN —I refer the Treasurer to his interview on The 7.30 Report on budget night where he refused to answer a question on past Treasury advice on carbon trading. Can the Treasurer confirm that the government rejected a 2003 cabinet submission on emissions trading? Is this why Dr Henry, the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, said he wished he had been listened to more attentively on climate change? Does the Treasurer believe the last four years is an unacceptable delay or an acceptable delay?
Mr COSTELLO (Treasurer) —The government is about to receive a report on emissions trading prepared by an interdepartmental group which senior members of the Treasury have been participating in. I look forward to receiving that. As soon as the government receives that report it will announce its response, and I expect that to be a good response.
Ms George —You won’t get rolled this time like you did last time.
Mr COSTELLO —Oh, yes, the former ACTU president comes in on cue. There is a former ACTU president over there, one over here, one over there and another one to come.
Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The Treasurer said it is on his desk. Will we have to wait four years to see it?
Mr COSTELLO —Labor might regard Rod Eddington as ‘another voice’, but it regards the ACTU as a multiple chorus. I am going to go on and make another point about receiving the report on the carbon emissions trading scheme. This government will actually receive the report before it announces its policy, and it will actually consider the consequences of various emissions targets before it names that policy which it will undertake. That is quite different from the Labor approach, which was to name an emissions target. This is what the Leader of the Opposition did: he named an emissions target and then he set up an inquiry to figure out what it would mean. He said that he was going to have this target by 2050 and then he said to Ross Garnaut, ‘Go and find out what the effect would be.’ I tell you this: when you are dealing with economic consequences, when you are dealing with people’s lives, it is a much better principle to find out what the effect of your policies will be before you adopt them—and that is what this government will be doing.
The SPEAKER —Has the Treasurer completed his answer?
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in late 2006 the climate issue had again broken through in Australia. Everyone had to pretend that they had always cared, and always taken appropriate action. John Howard’s track record of pure evil asshole-ness made this especially difficult for him, and he couldn’t manage it.
What I think we can learn from this. Again, it’s all kayfabe.There are plot-lines and story arcs, but the main through-line is that nobody is going to risk their career etc by doing the “right” thing, especially when that won’t matter.
What happened next is that the Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd won the 2007 Federal election and then managed to screw the pooch on climate so bad that – well, Australia is doomed. But was anyway – the damage was done by 1995, and there’s been no coming back…
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.
On this day 25 years ago, April 25, 2000, the Federal Environment Minister, Robert Hill spoke at a meeting to the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in Washington, ‘Beyond Kyoto: Australia’s efforts to combat global warming’, 25 April 2000,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia had extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (Hill had received a standing ovation at Cabinet afterwards). But it had leaked in 1998 that Howard was only going to ratify the deal if the US did (up in the air, with the 2000 election forthcoming). So Hill had to pretend all was well. And people had to pretend to be going along with that. Rude not to.
What we learn. It’s all kayfabe, innit?
What happened next. The Supreme Court handed George W Bush the 2000 election. In March 2001 he pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Australian Prime Minister John Howard waited until World Environment Day 2002 before doing same. Why the delay? Probably just because he liked watching the greenies twist in the wind? For the shingles, in other words.
Twenty-four years ago, on this day, April 19th 2001,
The difficulty for the Howard government is that its position on climate change is deeply unpopular and will cost it votes at the next federal election. A survey commission by Greenpeace Australia and released on April 19 found that 80.4% of respondents believed that Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, without the US if necessary.
The Greenpeace survey drew an angry response from industry minister Nick Minchin. “I think it’s irresponsible to be pushing this line without informing people how many jobs will be lost”, he said in an April 20 media release.
“ABARE [the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics] estimates that, even with the most optimistic assumptions, the costs to Australia of meeting the Kyoto Protocol commitments would be significantly more than a severe recession and several times that of a major drought”, Minchin said.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was a federal election coming. Climate change was likely to be – or Greenpeace would have liked it to be – a real issue. George W. Bush had just said America would not proceed with ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and everyone assumed that sooner or later, Prime Minister John Howard would follow suit.
So Greenpeace thought that they could do a survey, get some press coverage for it, put little pressure on the Liberals, maybe stiffen the spine of Labour, etc. And maybe it worked at the time.
What we learn is that these sorts of push surveys as a shot across the bows or a spine stiffener, or whatever, are a well-established political technique. What we should also learn is that they’re basically meaningless because people say all sorts of crap in a survey because they want to believe that they are the kind of person who cares. In the privacy of the ballot box people tend to vote with their ids or their wallets – and climate change doesn’t suit either of those.
What happened next? In August 2001 the Tampa nightmare happened. Or rather, the lies told by John Howard and his goons, almost 25 years ago now, happened. And Howard got another term in which he very predictably did everything he could to stop meaningful climate action. And then he got another term after that. 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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, January 25th, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard tries to explain away his late-2006 U-turn.
“I regard myself as a climate change realist. That means looking at the evidence as it emerges and responding with policies that preserve Australia’s competitiveness and play to her strengths.” John Howard, Address to the National press Club, 25 January 2007
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that a few months earlier John Howard had been forced to begin to pretend that he cared about the possibility of climate change from carbon dioxide build up. This was because of a whole sequence of events, including the ongoing Millennium drought, the release of Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and The Stern Review into the economics of climate change by Her Majesty’s Treasury. And so Howard had created the Shergold Group to look into the possibility of an emissions trading scheme. And this was, of course, stacked with the usual suspects and left out people who might have different, stronger opinions. But Howard wasn’t really convincing anyone. And so Howard was using words like “realism” in his National Press Club speech. And anyone who knows or has been around for any length of time knows that “realism” and “realistic” are code words that people use trying to frame themselves as the “sensible center” and their opponents as either wild eyed fanatics or dreamers.
What I think we can learn from this is that politicians will always try and do U-turns if cornered. Of course they will, but these may not work.
What happened next Howard became only the second Australian Prime Minister to lose his own seat at a Federal election. In November of 2007 the world got Kevin, “I’m from Queensland, and here to help” Rudd, who said he was going to sort out the climate issue. And he did as much on that as he did on the wheat to Iraq scandal and many others- that is to say, fuck all.
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.
