Tag: Kyoto

Categories
Australia

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1997,

The Australian energy, mining and paper industries have united to call on the Government to appoint a Cabinet-ranked sustainable development minister to combat “piecemeal management” and to take a national approach to greenhouse gas abatement.

Yesterday, industry peak bodies issued a joint statement saying the lack of coherent management was “one of the greatest threats to a robust, coherent and consistent industry policy and certainly to resources and energy policy”.

1997 Taylor, L. (1997) Industry wants minister for `greenhouse’ The Australian Financial Review 18th August

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that it was clear some sort of “Greenhouse Office” or greenhouse minister was going to be required, if only to keep the Libs quiet. And so this call from industries like Paper happening as it was, at the same time as the Countdown to Kyoto conference is a classic spoiler move, demand a ministerial post is created: that helps give small L-libs that something is being done (see also Macmillan Manoeuvre). And then you make damn sure that your guy is in charge. And if your guy isn’t in charge, you have fallback plans about withholding information, not inviting them to meetings, all the rest of it. And this is one of those good tactics that the dickheads have at their disposal. 

What we learn is that in isolation, a bold statement of fact can seem confusing, but once you put the pieces together of the puzzle, you see what else was happening. You see what else their motivations might have been. Then it becomes a little bit clearer. 

What happened next, there was no greenhouse minister that there was the Australian Greenhouse Office with pitiful funding that Howard appointed and then ignored. It was a total waste of money as the Australian National Audit Office pointed out in 2004.

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: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia

November 22, 2002 – private business battles on #climate become public in Australia

On this day, November 22 2002, the nasty spat within Australian business over whether to call for Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol broke out into public., with an article “Big business splits over greenhouse” by Miranda McLachlan in the Australian Financial Review

The dominant big business association, the Business Council of Australia, had backed Prime Minister John Howard in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol (even though Australia had been able to extort an absurdly generous “reduction” target of … an 8 per cent increase in emissions (more once you added the land-clearing loophole.

But over time, key business leaders – proponents of renewables, carbon trading etc, fought within the BCA for a change in its position.  They fought each other to a standstill, as reported in the Fin, and the BCA went to a “no position” position on Kyoto ratification…

See also – Bell, S. (2008). Rethinking the Role of the State: Explaining Business Collective Action at the Business Council of Australia. Polity, Vol. 40,. 4, 464-487

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 373ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Why this matters. 

When the business lobby splits, that’s when the fun starts. Which is why incumbent actors work so hard to stop those splits…

What happened next?

Howard held the line. Public pressure on climate only really kicked in in Australia in the second half of 2006.  The BCA promptly moved to various fall back positions.

The emissions kept climbing. The atmospheric concentrations kept climbing. Then came the ‘natural’ disasters.

Categories
Australia

Feb 22, 2000 – Japanese coal-burning to be dealt with by Australian trees?

On this day, February 22, in the year 2000, Japan and Australia talked up a deal that would have allowed carbon offsets and carbon trading using New South Wales as a giant carbon sink. 

Zinn, C. 2000. Japan in eco-credit deal with Australia. The Guardian, 22 February https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/feb/22/2 Australian forest authorities have been contracted to plant 40,500 hectares of trees (about 100,000 acres) on behalf of one of Japan’s largest power companies in a controversial scheme to fight global warming. The trees are meant to offset some of the greenhouse gas emissions generated in Tokyo. The Tokyo Electric Power Company signed the deal, which could cost up to £50m, with the New South Wales’s forestry division to grow hard and softwood plantations to capture carbon dioxide (CO2). But environmentalists question whether the project, scheduled to run for 10 years, will work. They claim the area is too small and that the forests must be maintained forever or the CO2 will go back into the atmosphere when the trees are processed.

The context is this. New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr had long been aware, and I mean long been aware of climate change as a problem – going all the way back to 1971 and a television appearance of Paul Ehrlich. He became premier of New South Wales in 1995. And there was a lot of interest in carbon trading and carbon sinks in the aftermath of the December 1997 meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, Japan, 

Japan, although energy efficient, was using a lot of coal from Australia. And so there was a certain symmetry in the deal, which did not ensue, because Australia just wasn’t going to ratify Kyoto. And without that, it couldn’t be “in” the sorts of deals. 

Why this matters

We need to remember that there are all sorts of fancy footwork, elegant solutions, in inverted commas, that do not come to pass. And even if they had, they would probably have been a disaster for biodiversity and not tackled the real problem. No, the basic problem is, nobody wants to cut their emissions, if it’s gonna cost money, and dampen the great God, economic growth

What happened next

Kyoto finally became law (minus the USA and Australia) in 2005.  17 years later, we’ve retreated from any binding targets to a “pledge-and-review” farce called the Paris Agreement.  We’re so screwed.