Tag: John Howard

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.

Categories
Australia

July 2, 2007 – Australia learns it has been left “High & Dry” on #climate change

On this day, 2nd July 2007, the highly-principled Guy Pearse (not the actor) released his brilliant book “High and Dry”.

“A Liberal Party member and former ministerial speechwriter issues a book today which depicts the Prime Minister with a stranglehold on environmental policy, deliberately surrounding himself with climate change sceptics.”

Rudra, N. 2007. Liberal attacks PM on climate. Canberra TImes, 2 July.

The problem was that High and Dry was soon “outdated,” when the Liberals were swept from office in late 2007.  Pearse wrote a cracking Quarterly Essay about what Labor was up to, published in 2009.

HOWEVER the book is well-written, well-researched and gives you names and tactics of the “Greenhouse Mafia.”

The book still stands as an example of how you

  1. Do a PhD
  2. Turn a PhD into a book (a different beast)
  3. Make an impact, behave with integrity.

Why this matters. 

Names are named, repertoires exposed. This is how you are supposed to do intellectual work.

What happened next?

Pearse kept writing about this for quite a while.

Categories
UNFCCC

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol

On this day, 23rd June 1997, world “leaders” gathered in Rio for a meeting packed with self-congratulatory speeches, this one to celebrate (if that is the word), five years since the Rio Earth Summit. (The 1992 Rio Earth Summit is the one that gave us the Biodiversity Treaty and the UNFCCC).


In the US the American Petroleum Institute was taking out full page ads to put pressure on President Clinton. In Australia Clive Hamilton co-ordinated the release of an open letter from 131 economists about the cost-effectiveness of early action.

Meanwhile, this good reporting by an Aussie journo gives you a sense of what happened. (John Howard didn’t go to Rio +5, but then his predecessor Paul Keting had not gone to Rio itself).

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, hands-hakingly 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.

James Woodford, Leaders Warm To The Task. Sydney Morning Herald, 28 June 1997

Why this matters. 

They pile promise upon promise, don’t they? Maybe the promises are what the Angel of History is seeing, as part of the wreckage upon wreckage hurled in front of his feet?

What happened next?

The next big event in the circuit was COP3, in Kyoto. An agreement was made that – as per the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities agreed at Rio – rich countries would go first in cutting emissions. The US and Australia never went with it. The fossil fuel use exploded. The atmospheric concentrations went up and up.

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

June 11, 1997 – US ambassador says Australia should stop being so awful on #climate

On this day, 25 June, 1997, (25 years ago), the Clinton Administration was making life a little difficult for Prime Minister John Howard, who was sending emissaries around the world in an effort to find allies for his “Australia should get an opt out from this Kyoto thing” position.

According to Johnston and Stokes (1997)

“As late as June 1997, the US Ambassador to Australia, Ms Genta Hawkins Holmes, stated that the US would seek “binding, realistic and achievable” targets at Kyoto; she claimed that Australia should make greater use of renewable energy sources and improve its “relatively inefficient use of hydrocarbon energy.” 

Johnston, W.R.  and Stokes, G. 1997.  Problems in Australian Foreign Policy: January- July 1997. Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol.43(3), pp.293-300.

See also – “Shared Values Drive US-Australia Alliance”. The Australian, 12 June 1997: 

“Ambassador Holmes Gives Elementary Warning on Warming”, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June 1997.

Why this matters. 

Australian federal governments have usually played a spoiling role in international negotiations (at the behest of powerful fossil fuel companies)

What happened next?

Australia, although diplomatically isolated, got a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto (via good luck and dummy spits).

And then refused to ratify. It was helped in this, enormously, by the selection of George W. Bush as President in 2000.

Categories
Australia

May 15, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard spouting “nuclear to fix climate” nonsense

On 13 May 2006, with the climate issue becoming harder to ignore, Prime Minister John Howard – after meeting President George Bush and Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and wittering on about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership – started flying kites about the need for Australia to go nuclear. This escalated over the following days – see here about comments he made in Canada.

The context was this – Howard had spent the previous ten years, as Prime Minister, blocking renewables, favouring coal and fossil fuel exports, and trying (with great success) to slow international action on climate change. But the endless Millennium Drought, and international developments (Kyoto ratification, the EUETS) were beginning to make him nervous. So, along comes nuclear to wedge the opposition and make him look like he was doing enough…

Why this matters

We need to remember that when in a tight spot, elite politicians will always reach for a gleaming technofix.

What happened next

There was a report. It said nuclear would be too expensive. Kevin Rudd became opposition leader, started banging on about climate change as “the great moral challenge”, to be solved with… checks notes… an Emissions Trading Scheme and Carbon Capture and Storage…

. cartoon by Nicholson in Australian (as per National insecurity Australia book, available on scribd)

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

On this day, 25th of April 1996 Greenpeace International condemned Australia’s negotiating stance at the climate talks in Geneva.

“Gilchrist, G. 1996. Greenpeace Attacks Global Warming ‘spoiling Tactics’. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 April, p.2. Australia’s spoiling tactics in negotiations on tackling global warming undermined the nation’s “clean and green” international image, Greenpeace International’s top climate campaigner, Mr Bill Hare, said yesterday. He warned that Australia’s diplomatic position on climate change threatened its long-term trade interests.”

The context is that the second Conference of the Parties, following on from Berlin the previous year, was going to be an important to way station on the way to completing the so-called Berlin mandate, which called on rich nations to agree emissions cuts.

It was feared that the Australian Government’s obstruction tactics would move from softly-softly on display at the previous COP to full-on, shameless and unashamed heel dragging (In March of 1996 the Labor government had been replaced by John Howard’s “Liberal National” coalition.) 

And – getting ahead of ourselves (COP2 did not happen till July 1996) – so it came to pass…

“The discussions at the second COP to the UNFCCC in Geneva in 1996 saw Australia establish itself as a climate change laggard. Immediately before the conference the government questioned the science of climate change and opposed the idea of the IPCC’s new conclusions on climate change impacts providing the basis for negotiations.55 Significantly, they were joined in this concern only by OPEC states and the Russian Federation.56 Most importantly, however, the government’s position at the Geneva negotiations was to oppose the idea of legally binding targets on greenhouse emissions.57”

Macdonald, Matt. 2005a. Fair Weather Friend? Ethics and Australia’s Approach to Climate Change. Australian Journal of Politics and History 51 (2): 216–234.

Why this matters. 

We need to prepare criminal briefs for crimes against humanity and other species at The Hague

What happened next?

The Australian Government played a spoiler role as it still largely has, in the climate negotiations, they got a very sweet deal at Kyoto still refused to ratify. And as I may have mentioned, the carbon dioxide keeps accumulating. 

Categories
Australia

April 6, 2006 – the anti-climate dam of John Howard begins to crack…

On this day, sixth of April 2006, the “Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change” released its first and I think only report, “The business case for early action,” a 25 page extravaganza of nice pictures and nice rhetoric..

The ABRCC was made up of insurance, banking and service sector outfits. (The manufacturing and extractive industries were conspicuously absent).

They were trying to combat the impression that John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia since March 1996, had been able to give of business was against climate action because it would destroy the economy.

It was not the first attempt to create a business pressure around climate action; WWF had been trying in 2003 or so. And of course, there were open letters and surveys and all sorts of other efforts before 2006.

Why it matters

Well, it doesn’t, but it reminds us that service sector (esp banking and insurance types, and sometimes “gas rather than coal” outfits are keen to seek out business opportunities, and to undermine the pro-coal/anti-carbon trading outfits. And that one of the ways they do that is via these sorts of gaudy one-offs…

What happened next

In retrospect, this report can be seen as one of the opening salvo softening up for what would happen later that year, which is one of these periodic explosions of concern about climate change that swept Kevin Rudd bless his cotton socks to power.

The ABCC to my knowledge to do much more. It had served its purpose. And once these loose coalitions have said their piece, it’s hard and “not worth it” to most of the members to start saying what they DON’T agree with – too much cost in co-ordinating, negotiating, reputation-managing for very little return. There are other ways to make their point, so these outfits tend to fold… 

Fun fact, the guy in charge of Westpac (big bank, and one of the signatories) at the time, David Morgan, is married to Ros Kelly, who was the third Australian was the the Australian Minister for the Environment back in 1990 when Australia made its first empty promise on emissions reductions. The Australian business elite have known about this issue for a very very long time.

Categories
Australia

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

On this day 15 years ago then-Opposition Leader Kevin “I’m from Queensland, I’m here to help” Rudd made a speech about “great moral challenge of our generation”  at the ALP climate summit at Parliament House, Canberra.

You can read more about this here, in a post by an incredibly intelligent, good-looking and kind individual who has given permission for linking. The conversation below the line is really really good…

Rudd was using the climate issue to make John Howard, Prime Minister and climate criminal since 1996, look outa touch. It was working, and kept working, all the way to the election. Australia cared about climate change.


Rudd then did fuck all as Prime Minister, using the climate issue to wedge the Liberals and Nationals, and then running scared after the failure of the Copenhagen conference and Tony Abbott’s arrival.

Labor folks still blame the Greens (for sake of clarity, I am not and never have been a member of ANY political party – Trot, Green Labour, Labor whatever). To admit that they chose and supported a wrong ‘un who has totally fucked Australian climate politics is just too much for them.