Tag: John Howard

Categories
Australia

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 5, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard got ridiculed on an ABC television programme.

Howard’s problem was that he had changed his policy but not his political strategy. He refused to genuflect before the icons: Al Gore’s scare, the drought as proof of a climate transformation, and Kyoto sanctification. For the ABC, Howard was now a figure of undisguised ridicule. His Lateline interview of 5 February 2007 began with this mocking question from Tony Jones: ‘Can you recall exactly when it was that you ceased being a climate change sceptic and became, in effect, a true believer?’

(Kelly, 2014:131)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Australian Prime Minister John Howard had a track record of 10 years of successful opposition to any action on climate, using all means fair and foul. He had finally been pushed because of an impending election into appointing one of his mandarins, in this case, Peter Shergold to examine an emissions trading scheme. Therefore journalists were beginning to have fun with Howard’s U-turn. Howard had to do the U-turn beacuse climate concern was being expertly used as a wedge issue by new opposition leader, Kevin Rudd.

What I think we can learn from this

Journalists who don’t really “get it” can still land blows. But the real problem is that the landing of these blows has an emotional release effect on viewers who think “ah, the system is working, the system is correcting, this bad person who I don’t agree with  will be gone soon”. They don’t then think about what they need to do for the long-term. It’s a kind of court jester catharsis thing.

What happened next

Howard was defeated. In the November 2007 election, Kevin Rudd came in with lots of promises, but no real action and poisoned the well, creating cynicism, which is still present.

References

Kelly, P. 2014. Triumph and Demise: The broken promise of a Labor generation. Melbourne University Press.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

December 16, 2002 – another knee-capping for renewable energy in Australia…

On this day, December 16 in 2002, the knee-capping of energy that isn’t fossil-based continued

“The director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, Frank Reid, says the organisation may have to abandon plans for a $60 million renewables venture capital fund if the Federal Government goes ahead with its decision to withdraw financial support from the organisation.”

Myer, R. (2002) Business – Energy research loses pivotal funding The Age 16th December

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 373ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

John Howard had won the 2001 election and set about further undermining renewable energy. The historical hatred of renewables among policy elites in Australia is fascinating – one speculation on it, by a devastatingly brilliant and handsome academic – is here.

Why this matters

If we had taken this seriously when the warnings started coming through, we would have

  1. Knocked the whole “consumption for consumptiton’s sake/as a replacement for meaning” thing on the head
  2. Done something about serious energy efficiency
  3. Done something about accelerating the research, development and deployment of renewables.

“We” (rich technocrats, mostly white, mostly male) didn’t think it mattered.  We thought our technology would save that subset of the species we call “us”.

What happened next?

Howard kept killing off renewables, every chance he got. Renewables have finally taken hold, but a) the delay, oh my the delay and b) they are additional to other energy demand, rather  than replacing it. We’re so toast.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

December 5, 2002 – Australian Government CCS support begins…

On this day, December 5 in 2002 the Australian “Prime Ministers Science and Industry Council” released a report called  “Beyond Kyoto- Innovation and Adaptation.”

This can be seen as the starting gun for Carbon Capture and Storage in Australia (it had already started moving in the UK).

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 373ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

John Howard had managed to get an absurdly sweet deal for Australia at the Kyoto conference in December 1997. Nonetheless, Australia had delayed ratifying, and on World Environment Day in June 2002 Howard finally did what people had long assumed – he copied George W. Bush in saying “nope.”  That meant that he’d have to put forward some other”solutions” to a problem he did not believe (and still does not believe?) is a problem.

It didn’t hurt that the chair of the PMSEIC, his chief scientist, Robin Batterham, was only doing the job part-time, i.e. when he wasn’t working for … Rio Tinto.

Why this matters. 

CCS for energy systems is absurd (CCS might have a role to play for industry, if the business models can be made to work).

What happened next?

A really good critique of the PMSEIC report was released shortly afterwards – see here.

Large sums of public money in Australia got wasted on CCS, with really nothing to show for it. But it’s too useful a rhetorical move to ever be finally killed off… And so here we are, twenty years later…

Categories
Australia

November 12, 1999 – John Howard and mates say “nope” to renewables

On this day, November 12, 1999 the cabinet of Prime Minister John Howard said “nope” to a pitifully small renewables target.

A proposal by the Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, implementing the Federal Government’s target of a 2 percentage increase in renewable energy was rejected by Cabinet because of industry concerns.

“Howard’s 2 per cent target has fallen victim to industry lobbying, again,” said Dr Clive Hamilton, executive director of Canberra policy research centre, The Australia Institute.

Two weeks ago, Senator Hill put a submission to Cabinet, arguing, according to industry sources, that meeting the target be made mandatory for business.

Hordern, N. 1999. Cabinet rejects energy target. Australian Financial Review, 12 November, p.17.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 368ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

In 1997 John Howard, desperate to prevent Australia having to adopt emissions reductions at the impending Kyoto Conference, had made various promises about renewable energy and so forth.  Once the moment had passed (Australia got an absurdly generous deal at Kyoto), he didn’t need to keep those promises (like any conman). And the industry lobbyists got to work, with their usual aplomb…

Why this matters. 

Australia could have been a renewable energy superpower.  Could have led the way.

What happened next?

In 2004 Howard got his fossil fuel mates to further undercut renewables in 2004, but the minutes of the “LETAG” meeting leaked. 

Categories
Australia

November 4, 2006 – Australians “Walk against Warming”

On this day, 16 years ago, a few months into one of the periodic explosions of concern about climate change, a Big Event happened in Sydney (and elsewhere)

“The Walk against Warming in Sydney on 4 November 2006, connected to similar events around the country, provided further cause to worry about the environment movement’s strategic grasp of the change opportunity now emerging. Business in many guises is now a key part of driving climate action, yet there was no formal sign of this at the rally. The speakers were the usual suspects: an environmental group, a trade unionist, Greens leader Bob Brown, the then ALP environmental spokesman Anthony Albanese and a church leader. Not a business leader or commercial voice to be heard, and when the Sunday papers reported the event the next morning, they were mainly interested in a celebrity participant, the Hollywood star Cate Blanchett.”

(Hogarth, 2007:62)

For an account – see here.

For my two cents, see this piece in The Conversation from 2018 about the (limited) utility of marches

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 382ish ppm. At time of writing it was 416ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

We may be beyond ups and downs in public awareness now, with the wreckage piling up around us all the time. But even within that “pervasive awareness” there will be lulls, when “normal life” seems to be returning. So, good to remember this pattern.

What happened next

The climate wars – Howard versus Rudd, Abbott versus Gillard.  Exhaustion for the small groups that tried to make a (local/national/global) difference.  Lost opportunities, wasted time that we didn’t have. So, you know, the usual.

Categories
Australia

October 20, 1997 – Greenpeace tries to give John Howard solar panels…

On this day, October 20  in 1997, Greenpeace activists found that they couldn’t GIVE away solar panels. Even to the Australian Prime Minister

1997 – Greenpeace activists install solar panels On Monday October 20, Greenpeace members occupied John Howard’s Sydney residence and installed some photovoltaic panels. It got front page coverage on most papers, and national TV. The ABC’s coverage included an interview with one of the police. He said ‘ Every thinking person should install solar panels on their house’

Source – Australian Views on Renewable Energy Caroline Le Couteur

See also here

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) _ More than 15 Greenpeace environmental activists on Monday stormed the gates of the prime minister’s official Sydney residence and scaled the house to set up six solar energy-collection panels.

They scaled the gates of Kirribilli House, on the north shore of Sydney Harbor right across from the Opera House, using ladders and climbed onto the second floor of the house to install solar panels to protest what they says is Australia’s neglect of solar energy technology.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Pat Keith Tarlo said they wanted to draw attention to the current global race to develop solar energy technology and to reduce the use of non-renewable fossil fuels.

“Australia is nowhere to be seen in this race,″ Tarlo said.

“It is a fantastic opportunity for Australian jobs and for Australian industry in solar technology, but at the moment the government is ignoring the possibilities.″

The activists placed banners on the roof which read: “Stop Climate Change Greenpeace″ and “Go Solar Greenpeace.″

Prime Minister John Howard was in Canberra to attend the opening of a session of Parliament, and there only appeared to be two security guards on the grounds who were unable to stop the protesters.

Police were deciding how to remove the protesters, who were still at the residence late Monday morning.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 360.98ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

John Howard was trying to in full court press mode trying to avoid Australia having to adopt any emissions reductions at the upcoming Kyoto conference. Something he succeeded at admirably.

Why this matters. 

Fun stunts, what’s not to love?

What happened next?

Australia got a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto. And still did not ratify until 2007 (when Kevin Rud became Prime Minister).

But on Kyoto, see here (Veil of Kyoto article).

Categories
Australia Fossil fuels Renewable energy

October 3, 2004 – John Howard revealed to have asked for fossil fuel CEOs to kill renewables. #auspol

On this day, October 3 in 2004, a journalist revealed that the Federal Government of Australia, led by John Howard, had had a meeting (invite-only) of top fossil fuel folks and asked for help in squishing renewable energy. 

“The Federal Government and fossil-fuel industry executives discussed ways to stifle growing investment in renewable energy projects at a secret meeting earlier this year.

Prime Minister John Howard called the meeting on May 6, five weeks before releasing the energy white paper on June 14.

The white paper favours massive investment in research to make fossil fuels cleaner, at the expense of schemes boosting growth in renewable energy.

Mr Howard called together the fossil-fuel-based Lower Emissions Technology Advisory Group to seek advice on ways to avoid extending the mandatory renewable energy targets scheme.”

Miller, C. 2004. PM called talks to derail renewable energy. The Age, 3 October

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/02/1096527990014.html

You can read the minutes here

https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WP56_8.pdf

Possibly the best example you could imagine of how state and corporate interests act together

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 374.63ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

All this talk about free markets. Yeah, right. State-managers gives favours (R&D, subsidies, tax-breaks etc) to those who can make party donations and arrange post-career sinecures NOW, not some potential future set of corporates.

What happened next?

Howard and the LNP continued to promote fossil fuels, at the expense of a) renewables and b) future generations.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

September 6, 2000 – Emission scheme defeated, it’s time for a gloating press release… #Climate #auspol

On this day, September 6, 2000, South Australian Senator Nick Minchin puts out a press release… I know, hold the front page, right…

But the context is that the first attempt to introduce a national level emissions trading scheme had just been defeated – with Nick Minchin largely responsible.  This was the semi-gloating declaration of victory…

Below is a quote from the ever-reliable Jim Green, writing in “Green Left Weekly”

The federal Coalition government has taken a number of decisions to reassure big business that measures adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact.

Federal minister for industry, science and resources Nick Minchin outlined “specific commitments” to industry in a September 6 press release. They were:

●        that a mandatory domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme will not be introduced “prematurely”;

●        that the government “will involve industry from the inception through to the implementation phase of greenhouse gas abatement policies and strategies that impact on the industry”;

●        that the government will work internationally “to get Australia the best possible greenhouse position”;

●        that the government will assist in “minimising the burden of greenhouse measures on business         through cost-effective actions”; and

●        that the government will not “discriminate against particular projects or regions in greenhouse policies and programs”.

“What we are saying to industry is that in any decisions we make on greenhouse, we will work to maintain their international competitiveness. This is a framework for the government’s greenhouse policy processes. These are all common sense measures that will allow Australian industry to grow and meet our Kyoto commitments. It’s good news for industry, which has warmly welcomed the government’s commitments”, Minchin said.

The government’s “specific commitments” are noticeably lacking in specifics. Canberra’s primary aim is simply to reassure business interests that measures to curb escalating greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact on their activities.

Green, J. 2000. Business warms to greenhouse ‘commitments’. Green Left Weekly, 13 September.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/business-warms-greenhouse-commitments

On this day the PPM was 367.15 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

There is inertia in human systems, but that inertia is often helped on its way by intransigence.  And that intransigence is not “stupid”. Underestimate the opponents of action at your peril…

What happened next?

Prime Minister John Howard got away with it for two more elections. Only in 2006-7 did this unravel for him.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

On this day, August 9, 2001, the OECD called on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Was told to piss off.

CANBERRA, Aug 9 AAP – An OECD call for Australia to introduce environment taxes was today ruled out by the government and opposition despite support from rural backbenchers.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s latest report showed that Australia’s economy was faring well, and that a carbon tax would be a cost-effective way to benefit the environment.

“Setting up a trading scheme or a carbon tax of broad sectoral coverage is the most cost-effective way to achieve emissions reductions,” the OECD report said.

Environment Minister Robert Hill branded the call Eurocentric, saying the government was instead focused on building economic growth with a low-tax environment.

McSweeny, L. 2001. Fed – Major parties reject OECD call for environment tax. Australian Associated Press, 10 August

Hill’s “Eurocentric” line would later be deployed by his boss John Howard, when Nick “Stern Review” Stern was dismissed for being (checks notes) English.


The depths of banality and venality. It is staggering, isn’t it?

Fun fact – Matthias Cormann, who helped stop the Liberal Party do anything even remotely un-cray on climate in the 2010s is now head of the OECD. Oh how we laughed.

On this day atmospheric co2 was 369.78 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

A carbon price was not a communist conspiracy. It really wasn’t. And it would have, with other measures, made some difference, delayed the apocalypse by a few days/weeks/months. Oh well…

What happened next?

The Howard government kept on shitting on everyone’s future. The Rudd government said it would do better. Didn’t. The Gillard government got the climate legislation through, but in the process gave the Murdoch press and the wrecking ball known as Tony Abbott all the ammo they needed (but to be clear, no matter WHAT Gillard did, they were going to try to destroy her).

Categories
Australia Energy

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic”

On this day, July 17, in 2006.

“in a keynote speech to business leaders [to CEDA], the Prime Minister, John Howard called for ‘realism’ on renewables. He said, ‘Renewables will play an increasing role in Australia’s energy mix, but pragmatism, rationality and flexibility also call for realistic expectations about this role for the foreseeable future. The cost of delivering low-emission electricity from renewables remains very high, with difficulties surrounding baseload power demands.’” 

(Prest, 2007: 254)

Ah yes, starve renewables of funding (MRET watered down, 2004 Energy White Paper) while throwing money at fossil fuels, make the business environment so toxic for wind power that Vestas pulls out) and then hold up your hands and then say “well, renewables can’t compete with fossil fuels” (which you’ve been busy subsidising and encouraging.

Genius. )

Why this matters. 

This word “realism,” eh? It’s like the word “practical”.

According to an incredibly brave anti-Nazi German, who parachuted behind the German lines in 1944 to gather intelligence and then get captured by advancing Allied troops, this is what praktisch actually means

“… the word praktisch had been a two-syllable club he’d been beaten with by fellow students and teachers and businessmen and clergy all through the nightmare years. “Stop being such a god-damned idealist! Be practical!” “Practical means I know right from wrong but I’m too fucking scared to do what’s right so I commit crimes or permit crimes and I say I’m only being practical. Practical means coward. Practical frequently means stupid. Someone is too goddamn dumb to realize the consequences of what he’s doing and he hides under practical. It also means corrupt: I know what I ought to do but I’m being paid to do something different so I call it practical. Practical is an umbrella for everything lousy people do.”

(Quote from Brendan Phibbs amazing book The Other Side of Time: a Combat Surgeon in World War II Little Brown & Co, New York (1987)

See also the word “constructive”

“Constructive” as a codeword for “I don’t want to address your points.” See also “praktisch”

And this graphic that inspired the post

What happened next?

The Liberals and Nationals have continued to do everything they can to slow the energy transition, with a lot of success.