Categories
Australia

 July 20, 1997 – Howard appoints a taskforce…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 11st, 1997, John Howard gets his ‘gotta kill any expectations of Australia being a responsible actor on climate’ taskforce together.

Mr Howard yesterday appointed a top level climate change task force, including senior Canberra bureaucrat Roger Beale and Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment Howard Bamsey, to visit Washington, Tokyo and London, following up his recent greenhouse talks with world leaders.

Lunn, S. 1997. Gas targets framed as bargaining chip. The Australian, July 21, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was xxxppm. As of 2026, 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 that the Australian government had initially said the right words on climate, but this melted away through the early 1990s.  By 1996, and especially with its performance at the second COP, in Geneva in July, it was obvious Australia would be a bad-faith player.

The specific context was the Kyoto COP was coming, and John Howard was pulling out all the stops to try to avoid any emissions reductions commitments.

What I think we can learn from this, it is not too late to send Howard to the Hague.

What happened next – At Kyoto, through whining and exhaustion, Australia got a 108% emissions “reduction” target, that was actually 130% once you took into account the land-clearing clause.

And Australia STILL did not ratify, until 2007 under Kevin Rudd (that’s another story).

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 20, 1989 – New “Ambassador for the Environment” role makes greenies happy 

July 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football… 

July 20, 1995 – Patrick Moore at the National Press Club 

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed 

Categories
Australia

June 30, 2007 – “High and Dry” excerpted

Nineteen years ago, on this day, June 30th, 2007

Excerpts of Guy Pearse’s book High and Dry in “Good Weekend” newspaper supplement

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that that Guy Pearse was a nice young capital-L Liberal activist who, in 1988 had gone to the United States on a kind of exchange to work with a Republican, and then quickly realised that the Republican wasn’t interested in the same stuff that he was, and had ended up working briefly for Al Gore’s failed Democratic presidential nomination bid. He had further switched on to environment, and especially greenhouse. He had tried to offer his services back in Australia. This had not really worked, because while the ACF was up for it, the Liberals were not – they felt they had been ‘stabbed in the back’ by the greenies. 

He had then done a PhD, part time at Australian National University. It is a brilliant PhD, in my opinion, it is based on extensive interviews with people who were his mates in lobbying for various different industries against any greenhouse regulation. They called themselves the “greenhouse mafia”, which was distinct, of course, from the AIGN. 

Anyway, his PhD thesis formed the inspiration/basis for a Four Corners documentary on ABC television in 2006. And he wrote a big fat book that was an expansion and extension of his thesis. Well, it’s actually different. It’s up, but it’s on the same topic about John Howard and Howard’s resistance to climate policy. Very good book, in my opinion. 

The specific context was that by mid-2007 you couldn’t move but for articles about climate change, almost 20 years after the first wave. 

What I think we can learn is this: that newspapers have acres of space to fill, and they also need to give their readers the sense or pretence that their finger is on the pulse. And so you’ll see newspapers publishing stuff that might not be a close enough ideological fit for their owners (but in any case, usually the control is a little less heavy-handed than that sentence would imply, at least in parts of the West).

What happened next: Pearse kept being active on climate stuff for a few years, but ultimately withdrew because it was obvious that we as a species we’re fucking doomed. Guy Pearse did more than most, and deserves all the credit for that, in my opinion.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 30, 1988 – Toronto conference on “Our Changing Atmosphere” ends  

June 30, 2006 – Australian CCS inquiry launched

June 30, 2008 – Judge stops a coal-burning power plant getting built.

June 30, 2010 – CCS will be at 5GW by 2020. (nope).

Categories
Australia Predatory delay Renewable energy

June 18, 2004 – Australian government lobbied about renewables. Again

Twenty two years ago, on this day, June 18th, 2004.  

Environmentalists today urged the government to do more to develop renewable energy technologies, amid news that Australia had been branded the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluter.

Green groups and industry associations held a crisis meeting in Canberra to develop an urgent action plan for the environment ahead of the federal election.

 AAP, 2004. Australia branded worst greenhouse polluter. Sydney Morning Herald, 18 June.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245104076.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that from the 1950s Australia had had some renewables industries around solar, hot water heating and some very basic wind turbines, and that with appropriate support and funding that could have exploded, but of course, it would then have been a competitor to the coal lobby and to big centralised outfits like ETSA and so on.

And so the CSIRO funding got cut. (See Mark Diesendorf on this).

In 1994-95 there had been a proposal for a carbon tax at a federal level in Australia, and there would have been hypothecated funding available for renewable energy. The carbon tax was defeated, and the money therefore never arrived. And in 1997, ahead of the Kyoto conference, Prime Minister John Howard had had to make empty promises about a mandatory renewable energy target for Australia. He had, then, having got what he wanted at Kyoto, deliberately slow-walked this and muddied the waters until it all became largely futile. You can read about it in Clive Hamilton’s Running from the Storm. 

The specific context was that in 2003 Howard had gathered his mates together, the Low Emissions Technologies Advisory Group and demanded their help in squashing renewables, though this didn’t emerge until late 2004. Meanwhile, in the lead up to the 2004 energy white paper, which was a gift to the fossil fuel lobby, we see this sort of lobbying trying to get support for renewables. 

What I think we can learn is this: the good guys lose. Everybody knows the war is over and that John Howard is a fucking criminal. That’s I mean, that’s it, really, that’s the post. 

What happened next: emissions kept climbing.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 18, 1972 – Patrick White becomes a reluctant greenie activist

June 18, 1976- UK Meteorological Office explains things to Cabinet Office

June 18, 1984- OECD holds conference on “environment and economics”

 June 18, 2013 – Feeble ’Wind Fraud’ rally in Canberra

June 18, 2015 – Power station petition – All Our Yesterdays

June 18, 2008 – Carbon Capture and Storage is going to save Australia. Oh yes. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

May 31, 2007 – Shergold Report released 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 31st, 2007 the Australian ‘Shergold Report’ was released:

The Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading releases the ‘Shergold Report’ which recommends Australia develop an emissions trading scheme.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian political elites had been warned repeatedly about climate change from the late 1970s onwards. The Howard government from 1996 had chosen to resist any and all domestic and international action on climate that would either inconvenience rich people and fossil fuel companies or even potentially lead to their inconvenience at some point in the future. So, for example, Howard resisted all calls to ratify the Kyoto Protocol even though it would mean nothing substantive, because the next deal might and once you’ve given in on one thing, you have to give in on the next, or it’s easier for you to be forced not to give.

The specific context was that in September, October of 2006 public awareness of concern about climate change spiked because of the Millennium drought, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, (he visited Australia) and a bunch of other factors. Howard’s resistance to climate change action or even the investigation of it became untenable, and so Howard did what any politician will do. He appointed a band, a panel led by a reliable civil servant, Peter Shergold. The panel was, of course, stacked with the usual suspects, fossil fuel hacks and CEOs and so forth, and didn’t have scientists or civil society people who would ask awkward questions. And Howard’s plan, I think, was for the Shergold report to be a fig leaf behind which he could hide ahead of the upcoming Federal election. He wanted to be able to use to wave the Shergold report around to show that he was willing to do something on climate change, or to countenance doing something on climate change, and so neutralise one of the rhetorical weapons that the Labour opposition leader Kevin Rudd had in his armoury, 

What I think we can learn from this. that you can’t really understand the provenance and purpose of so-called “fact-finding” reports without understanding the politics and the motivations behind it. 

What happened next. The Shergold report did not function as Howard hoped it would, and Howard was on a hiding to nothing, because people wanted actual action on climate change, and they thought that Kevin Rudd would deliver, or they hoped he would – poor deluded fools. See also. Chris Rootes, “first climate election” published in the journal Environmental Politics…

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: 

May 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

May 31, 1981 – RIP Barbara Ward – All Our Yesterdays

 May 31, 1994 – Climate change and Frankenstein Syndrome…

May 31, 1995 – newly-minted MCA meets with Keating… – All Our Yesterdays

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

May 29, 2007 – Howard derides Stern as “English”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 29th, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard plays the “he’s an Englishman” card versus economist Nick Stern… 

However, in a Parliamentary debate in May 2007, the Prime Minister suggested the [Stern] review was Eurocentric propaganda. He stated that the report of the Government’s Task Group on Emissions Trading:

… will not be a grab bag of proposals taken holus-bolus from a report written by an Englishman for European conditions and designed to promote the political objectives of the British government. That is what the Stern report is all about. Stern is not the biblical scholar of climate change that is posited by those who sit opposite. Stern has written from the perspective of an Englishman, from the European circumstance and from the European point of view. 73

Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 29 May 2007, 48 (John Howard, Prime Minister).

Macintosh, 2008 page 66-7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that John Howard, as prime minister, had spent the 10 years from 1996 to 2006 amplifying and extending the previous Keating Labor government’s hostility to climate change action. Howard had painted himself into a corner, and it was understood that he wasn’t going to be able to paint himself out, or leap over the wet paint, or whatever the metaphor might be. 

The specific context was that  the UK Labour Tony Blair government had asked a World Bank economist called Nick Stern to produce a report on the “economics of climate change.” This was largely to overcome Treasury intransigence on the question of climate policy. The report, the Stern review, was released in late 2006.

It was at this point, not entirely unrelated, that John Howard had had to perform a U-turn and announce the creation of the ‘Shergold Taskforce’, which would look into the economics of emissions trading.  

What I think we can learn from this  is that even the best politicians – and Howard was a good politician. I do not mean that as a compliment – run out of steam and run out of road, and by this time, Howard had. Now, very rarely does a politician know when to leave the stage. If Howard had announced his retirement in 2006 his legacy, his “reputation”, would have been assured. But they all come to believe their own propaganda. They all come to believe that they are somehow indispensable. So… no one is indispensable. 

What happened next. 

Here we are 20 years later, at the beginning of the Fafocene.  Economics has not saved us. What we needed was more, but we didn’t know how to get it. And the opposition to ‘it’ was extremely deep-seated and almost insurmountable.  

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: 

May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

May 29, 1989- “We will all be flooded” –

May 29, 1992- ANAO says it will look at DPIE’s energy management programme 

Categories
Australia

April 17, 2000 – Howard pushing carbon sinks…

On this day 26 years ago,

“Australia is preparing to host a major international meeting of environment ministers to broaden global acceptance of forests as a source of carbon credits.

But the meeting comes at a time when the ability of forests to actually generate these credits is increasingly in scientific doubt.

The High Level Forum on Sinks will be held in Perth from April 17-20.”  

Hordern, N. 2000. Australia pushes carbon sinks. The Australian Financial Review, March 3, p.16.

And

Australia is being accused of deliberately “stacking” a conference of international environment ministers in Perth next week in a bid to undermine the global goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The conference, starting on Monday, is about the use of “sinks” or the planting of trees to gain credits, a suggestion under the Kyoto Protocol which could be used to offset countries’ inability to reduce emissions from industry and motor vehicles.

Australia has invited ministers from around the world, but stands accused of inviting only countries sympathetic to its own position on sinks.

Germany and other European countries which are of the view that overuse of sinks could encourage countries not to reduce emissions have been left out.

An Australian Greenhouse Office paper on the conference reveals that only “key members of the European Union”, Finland, France, the UK and The Netherlands, were invited.

Greenpeace’s international policy director, Mr Bill Hare, yesterday accused the Federal Government of stacking the conference. Mr Hare said Tuvalu and other Pacific nations were also not invited, when small Pacific States were likely to be most in danger from sea level rises caused by the greenhouse effect.

 Clennel, A. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Conference `stacked’. Sydney Morning Herald, April 15, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australia’s political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build up as a problem, repeatedly, by scientists, by spooks, by journalists, by politicians, and they had ignored it all. They had carved themselves a spectacular deal at the Kyoto conference, and there were a whole load of people who wanted to make money from selling carbon credits, plant a tree in Australia and get paid for doing so by some Japanese or Korean polluter who doesn’t want to cut their own emissions. Ker-ching!

The only fly in that ointment being that for you to be able to engage in carbon trading, your country’s government would have to have ratified Kyoto. Now at this point, it wasn’t clear what would happen, because if the Americans did ratify Kyoto, the pressure on the Australians to do so would be enormous.

And therefore it made sense, in 2000 to be holding these sorts of conferences and pushing these sorts of lines.

A year later, once the Bush administration had pulled out that particular balloon lost all its air. Though, it’s fair to say as well that the so-called Sydney’s Futures Exchange didn’t even last that long. 

The specific context was that 

What I think we can learn from this is that some people dreamed of global carbon trading. Never happened.

What happened next:  Bush pulled out of Kyoto. Australia pulled out of Kyoto. Kyoto looked dead. The whole carbon credits thing looked dead. And then in 2004 Russia Duma ratified the Kyoto Protocol, bringing it into force and the whole UNFCCC circus sprang/staggered back into life. 

Also on this day

 April 17, 1981 – David Burns writes in New York Times about trouble ahead – All Our Yesterdays

April 17, 1993 – Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

April 17, 2007 – UN Security Council finally discusses the most important security issue of all…

Categories
Australia

April 7, 2006 – Howard versus moths and cockatoos …

Twenty years ago today, governments make their usual big empty promises…

On 7 April, two days after the Bald Hills decision, Neil Mitchell of 3AW put the Prime Minister on the spot in relation to a housing project west of Melbourne at Melton, saying ‘there’s a $400 million development out there at risk’ because of the elusive and endangered grassland-dwelling Golden Sun Moth. The Prime Minister was unaware of the moth. Still he promised ‘I will investigate that’. Other stories queried whether the endangered red-tailed black cockatoo would ‘sink a $650 million pulpmill’ in SA, and whether the little known flatback turtle would continue to raise an issue for Chevron’s $11 billion Gorgon gas project off the northwest coast of Western Australia.

(Prest, 2007: 253)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 election with a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor, but this had not won them for the election. Small-g greens had come out for Labor, and the Liberals decided they had been “stabbed in the back” and that all of this was all climate change stuff was a socialist hokum. John Howard, who had become prime minister 10 years before the events described here, had done everything in his power to protect the fossil fuel industry and to quash the growth in renewables and to prevent international action. 

The specific context was that Howard was beginning to look old, beginning to lose his grip. Kyoto had, in fact, finally been ratified by enough nations to come into force, and negotiations for a success and protocol were underway. 

Also, the Australian Conservation Foundation had teamed up with various banks, for example, including Westpac, and released a study with the laughable title “early action on climate change”  that was a couple of days before this. And Howard’s environment minister was maybe not quite as sharp as either of them thought and had managed to create opportunities for people to poke fun. This latest one was the apparent John Howard beginning to not quite be on top of things. We now know that late 2006 was the year that the dam broke and that Howard stopped being invincible and started to look very, very beatable for the 2007 election.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are usually cracks in the dam. Sometimes these cracks just stay there. Other times, with hindsight, you can see that floods about to begin. 

What happened next:  Howard not only lost the 2007 election, but he also lost 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.

Also on this day: 

April 7, 1980 – C02 problem is most important issue… “another decade will slip by” warns Wally Broecker to Senator Tsongas

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

April 7, 2010 – Ziggie tries to sprinkle Stardust – 50 nuclear reactors by 2050 – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

March 11, 2001 – Don Burke adverts

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. 

Burke himself, well, here’s Wikipedia:

He has been an outspoken critic of numerous environmental advocacy groups. From July 2005 to late 2008,[3] Burke was the Chair of the climate-change-denying Australian Environment Foundation.[4]

then revealed to be. Well…

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]

In the following days, many celebrities came forward to recount their observations of Burke’s sexist and offensive behaviour, including Susie O’Neill,[14] Kerri-Anne Kennerley,[15] Di Morrissey, Debra Byrne, Tottie Goldsmith, Amity Dry and Mike Carlton.[16]

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.

Also on this day: 

March 11, 1959 – Warmer Arctic Raising World’s Sea Level…

March 11, 1969 – NASA explains need to monitor C02 build-up to politicians

March 11, 1989 – warm words at The Hague, where the climate criminals should be sent…

March 11, 2008 – Australia’s ratification of Kyoto Protocol comes into effect

Categories
Australia France International processes

October 11, 2000 – Aussies want to mark their own homework

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.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-sceptics-lose-plot

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.

Also on this day: 

October 11, 2006 – “Climate Institute” begins tour of rural Victoria 

Categories
Australia

September 23, 2007 – “Climate “clever” fools no-one…

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.

http://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/govt-climate-ad-campaign-not-so-clever/

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.

Also on this day: 

September 23, 1986 -Joe Biden suggests urgent #climate action…

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

September 23, 2014 – Obama gives a wonderful speech about climate change. We are saved. – All Our Yesterdays