On this day 24 years ago, Wind Power Energy Association types tried to get some sensible stuff going. Yeah, good luck with that.
CANBERRA, July 14, AAP – Labels telling consumers their electricity came from fossil fuel should be put on power bills, supporters of the wind energy industry said today. President of the Australian Wind Energy Association Grant Flynn said most consumers were unaware that most of their power was derived from the burning of fossil fuels.
Putting a sticker on power bills telling consumers the source of their electricity would go a long way to making the public more aware of greenhouse gas issues. “A lot of people don’t really understand that a significant proportion of their electricity, about 90 per cent of it, comes from burning fossil fuels,” he said.
Mr Flynn’s group was one of several to make submissions to a review of the government’s renewable energy bill.
2000 Wright, S. 2000. Fed – Labels should tell consumers where their power comes from. AAP, 14 July.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Federal government of John Howard was doing everything it could to renege on its 1997 promise of more renewables (made as a pre-Kyoto distraction). Evil evil people
What we learn – the hope that the mythical Ethical Consumer will save the day is a powerful one.
What happened next. John Howard kept being a climate criminal. Renewables eventually took off, but later than they could have. Oh well, nice planet while it lasted.
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, June 29th, 2004 another Liberal talks nonsense about renewables.
’ Mr Peter McGauran MP, the federal Minister for Agriculture and member for Gippsland, went further in June 2006, saying ‘Wind farms don’t live up to the hype that they’re the environmental saviour and a serious alternative energy source.
ABC, 2006. Pete McGauran says wind farms a fraud. AM Program, 29 June. 2006
(Prest, 2007: 254)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context is that the Howard government was doing its absolute best to suppress the rise of renewables. It had been forced or it had in 1997, chosen to announce a renewables target As part of its, “this is why we won’t sign Kyoto” campaign.
And then it had been forced to eventually create a mandatory renewable energy target that came into effect in April of 2001. By this time, the Howard Government had called a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group, a bunch of fossil fuel majors, asking for their help in suppressing renewables. So this is arguing that there is hype around renewables. But that very accurate critique of hype and unrealistic expectations around a new technology, oddly, never gets applied to carbon capture and storage or god forbid nuclear.
What we learn is that Liberal Party, people call themselves conservative, but they’re not conserving the planet, ecosystems, quality of life for anyone. What they’re conserving is their own position, relative power and importance by cuddling up to the status quo act as they are conserving a poisonous deadly status quo.
What happened next? The investment environment for renewables in Australia became so hostile that Vestas the Danish wind turbine manufacturer, ended up closing its factory in Tasmania/ It would only be from 2012-13 that renewables really took off in Australia, in part, thanks to international factors, but also don’t underestimate ARENA and the CEFC.
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.
Seventeen years ago, on this day, May 29th, 2007, Prime Minister John Howard uses taxpayers’ money to try to get people to forget his past ten years of climate vandalism/criminality.
Labor turned up the heat over federal government advertising as Prime Minister John Howard conceded a climate change campaign was on the way.
THERE is $52.8 million ready to spend on a climate-change advertising blitz if and when the Government chooses to introduce one, Prime Minister John Howard admitted yesterday.
Doherty, B. 2007. Howard coy on $53m ads. The Age, 30 May.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had spent 10 years doing everything in his power to stop climate action. He had been enormously successful with this. From September 2006, however, the pressure for action became intense, and he needed to pivot. So we had the Shergold report group that was supposed to pronounce on an emissions trading scheme. But Howard had not really convinced anyone about his new green credentials. The ABC’s Tony Jones had trolled him in February of 2007. And he had denounced the Stern Review as “pure speculation.” So it’s kind of unsurprising that all this taxpayer funded Climate Clever advertising bullshit, launched in September 2007, convinced precisely no one.
What we learn is that politicians are used to being able to U-turn, pivot on a dime, to have no convictions, but there is a limit. (See Martin Kettle talking about Francois Mitterrand in The Guardian, December 7 2023, which is the day I’m recording this.) And you can’t easily remake yourself once people have made up their mind about you as much as you would like to think that you can. You’re set in concrete.
What happened next, the Climate Clever nonsense was spoofed by Get Up. Howard couldn’t bring himself to ratify Kyoto, because he knew he looked weak. And he was swept from office by Labor’s Kevin Rudd. But that didn’t mean that the climate policy issue then got dealt with by adults. That would have to wait until Juliet Gillard, in 2011. That is not to say there weren’t adults who didn’t make massive mistakes but still, nonetheless, adults.
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 four years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 2000,
Prior to a Cabinet meeting on 22 May [2000] where the greenhouse trigger was to be discussed, the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson publicly criticised the proposal, describing it as ‘unnecessary and inappropriate’ and suggesting it would harm the economy, particularly in regional [page break] areas. In a press release issued on 22 May, Anderson said that ‘it was not necessary or appropriate for the Commonwealth to effectively take over the State’s role in the environmental assessment and approval of major developments.
(Macintosh, 2007: 49-50)
And then this –
Senator Hill had been ambushed. It appears neither he nor his staff were aware the trigger proposal was likely to face such fierce opposition in Cabinet….
The anti-greenhouse, anti-trigger camp did not stop at this. The following day [23 May 2000] senator Minchin presented research he had commissioned from Dr Brian Fisher of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), a critic of the Kyoto Protocol, which found that meeting Australia’s Kyoto target could cost between 0.5 per cent and 1.4 per cent of Gross National Product at 2010. The fossil fuel lobby used this research as a springboard to back Anderson’s and Minchin’s position, suggesting the trigger would have significant adverse economic implications. Dick Wells, the executive director of the Minerals Council of Australia, was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying, ‘[w]e agree with John Anderson that the trigger would harm employment and regional growth…..
(Macintosh, 2007: 50)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Howard Government had signed the environmental biodiversity protection and conservation act in 1998 and there was talk of a so-called greenhouse trigger which meant that any particularly carbon intensive scheme would have to go to a minister for approval. Yikes, because this would mean that there would be more lobbying and more political cost in waving through the latest worship of the great god Development. The opponents of greenhouse action hated this idea. And on this day, there was an ambush.
What we learn is that political parties have different factions representing different interests. And there is always going to be a headbanger element, whether it’s Warwick Parer, Nick Minchin, John Anderson, whatever.
What happened next? Well, the greenhouse trigger did not get up and three months later, there was another defeat when the emissions trading scheme also bit the dust.
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 seven years ago, on this day, April 28th, 1997, Prime Minister John Howard says Australia should not have signed the UNFCCC. Classy guy.
On 28 April 1997 on ABC Radio National, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, stated publicly that he believed that Australia should never have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This was the culmination of over a year of backpedaling by the Australian Liberal-National Party Government on the issue of climate change due to purported negative economic impacts.”
Yu and Taplin, 2000 The Australian Position at the Kyoto Conference in Gillespie and Burns (eds) Climate Change in the South Pacific: Impacts and Responses in Australia, New Zealand, and Small Island States, Kluwer
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was the COP3 (Kyoto) conference coming at the end of year, and the Berlin Mandate of 1995 meant that rich nations (including Australia) were supposed to turn up and agree to a CUT in emissions.
What I think we can learn from this
Howard has never been a “conservative”. He’s a radical statist directing taxpayers’ money and assets towards his mates. Like Thatcher squandering North Sea Oil, he squandered the commodity supercycle. Prick.
What happened next
Howard had ten years to destroy everything decent about Australia. Job’s largely done, though there are mopping up operations ongoing. And resistance, of course.
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, April 27th, 1999, another government-appointed group delivered another ‘worthy’ report.
The high-level Greenhouse Energy Group will today receive the final report of the task force set up by the Federal Government to devise ways to meet its target of a 2 per cent increase in the use of renewable energy over the next decade.
Hordern, N. 1999. Greenhouse targets study ready. Australian Financial Review, 27 April, p. 11.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that as part of his pre Kyoto spoiler efforts, John Howard had promised a 2% renewable energy target. That was in 1997. The whole process had been extremely painfully drawn out by it since then, meaning that it was in effect, a 1% target. And this was another small link in a long chain of events. So let’s have another report. Let’s have another Working Group. Let’s just draaaag the process out for as long as possible to demoralise and confuse everyone, so that we don’t have to do what we promised we would do. Politics business as usual.
What we learn is they’ll make a promise but then getting them to implement it requires more energy, tenacity, and smarts than social movements and civil society tend to have.
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 amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that, in the run up to Kyoto, John Howard had made a series of seemingly significant promises to deflect from the fact that he was extorting a criminally generous deal for Australia. One of those promises was a 2% renewables target for Australia’s electricity. Another was the creation of a so-called “Australian Greenhouse Office.” It had been slow to be set up, and how it had basically ignored it. It was a decaying and wilting fig leaf. And the Australian National Audit Office didn’t hold back in saying so.
What I think we can learn from this is that creation of these impressive sounding bodies is a time-honoured tactic, especially among right-wingers because it gives liberals a sand pit to play in. And people who are naive about how states operate can be momentarily or permanently fooled, simply because there is now some new bureaucratic outfit. This is not to say all bureaucratic outfits are useless all the time. Only that they have the potential to be so…
What happened next the AGO was basically abandoned.
Howard kept being a complete douche until he was forced in late 2006 to be a slightly more conniving douche: he set up the Shergold group to look at emissions reductions, but by that stage, nobody believed him and his days were numbered.
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 amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that, in the run up to Kyoto, John Howard had made a series of seemingly significant promises to deflect from the fact that he was extorting a criminally generous deal for Australia. One of those promises was a 2% renewables target for Australia’s electricity. Another was the creation of a so-called “Australian Greenhouse Office.” It had been slow to be set up, and how it had basically ignored it. It was a decaying and wilting fig leaf. And the Australian National Audit Office didn’t hold back in saying so.
What I think we can learn from this is that creation of these impressive sounding bodies is a time-honoured tactic, especially among right-wingers because it gives liberals a sand pit to play in. And people who are naive about how states operate can be momentarily or permanently fooled, simply because there is now some new bureaucratic outfit. This is not to say all bureaucratic outfits are useless all the time. Only that they have the potential to be so…
What happened next the AGO was basically abandoned.
Howard kept being a complete douche until he was forced in late 2006 to be a slightly more conniving douche: he set up the Shergold group to look at emissions reductions, but by that stage, nobody believed him and his days were numbered.
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, February 6 2007 new Labor leade Kevin Rudd had asked Prime Minister John Howard if a submission proposing an emission trading scheme had gone before cabinet in August 2003 and if that proposal was rejected.
Rudd – and frankly everyone else – knew the answer was “yes”. It had been extensively reported, since at least 2004. In August 2003, Howard had met with some business mates and killed off the Cabinet proposal (which the entire Cabinet, including Joe Hockey, Peter Costello etc were behind). See here – August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action
Rudd was just trying to embarrass Howard, who had a couple of months before performed a screeching U-turn and appointed Peter Shergold (civil servant) and some business cronies to look at an an ETS.
What we learn – it was all theatre
What happened next. Howard’s U-turn made him look weak rather than caring, and he was swept from power. Kevin Rudd then saved the day (subs, please check).
Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 10, 2006 Australian Prime Minister John Howard, cornered on the subject of climate change, undertakes a U-turn that convinces absolutely no-one (but gives ‘conservative’ commentators something to write about while convincing themselves that all is well).
Shergold Group announced – J Howard (Prime Minister), Prime Ministerial Task Group On Emissions Trading, media release, 10 December 2006. Reports on 31 may 2007
On the same day, 10 December, as bushfires ravaged north-eastern Victoria and Sydney’s dam levels dropped ever lower, Howard appointed a high-level business and government taskforce to report on global emissions trading options by May 2007…. It has a whiff of big business panicking a little because having delayed action for so long, the main polluters will be fearful of Labor designing a future trading scheme rather than one designed by a Coalition government.
(Hogarth, 2007:32)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australians had – almost 20 years after the previous wave – become agitated (or at least agitatable) about climate change, in the context of the seemingly-endless Millennium Drought, and international factors (including Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth). Meanwhile, Federal Labor politician Kevin Rudd had been banging on about it, and getting traction. By the time the Shergold thing was actually announced (it must have been on the drawing board for a while?) Rudd had become opposition leader, and it was clear climate was going to be a key tool in Rudd’s attempt to unseat Howard at the next Federal Election, which had to happen by December 2007.
What I think we can learn from this
When they are cornered, politicians will resort to “task forces” which will produce reports. They hope this will remove the oxygen from the issue, and that they can say they are “listening”/consulting. It’s an old tactic, but it works (see also Macmillan Manoeuvre).
What happened next
The Shergold Report was released the following May, but did not achieve the closure/diversion that Howard clearly wanted it to. Events overtook it, the tide of opinion had decisively shifted. Howard was toast. Not that Rudd was actually any better on the issue.
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..
References
On the sudden coming of the climate issue in late 2006, see The Third Degree by Murray Hogarth.
Ten years ago, on this day, November 8, 2013, John Howard gave a speech at the Global Warming “Policy” “Foundation” with the title “One Religion is Enough“
and
Same day – Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines.
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 that John Howard had been booted out as Prime Minister, and even MP, partly because he’d been such a terrible dickhead on climate, as befits old white conservative men.
The other context is that some “charity” called the Global Warming Policy Foundation had been set up and were holding annual lectures. So it seemed like a good idea to get little Johnny on.
It’s an interesting title, isn’t it, “one religion is enough”? Well, if we’re only going to have one religion, my vote is a for either a particularly humane form of Buddhism, or Fuck it, let’s just go to paganism. Let’s get rid of the bearded sky gods. And especially when the bearded sky gods have been whittled down to one, because that seems to have caused no end of trouble. Or, if not caused, it been a useful adjunct to keeping that particular shit show on the road…
Aaand breathe….
What I think we can learn from this is that anti-reflexive organisations are good at gaming the media, they knew that this would get outrage and clicks. Makes them feel like they exist.
What happened next
Well, the weather vane, Tony Abbott also gave a speech at the GWPF, and it’ll be interesting to see if the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds Scott Morrison too much of a reputational risk to them.
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.
