Tag: Malcolm Turnbull

Categories
Australia

October 3, 2007 – Turnbull makes a pledge

Nineteen years ago, on this day, October 3rd, 2007,

A new $4 million commitment to educating local governments on responses to climate change will tackle the global problem at a community level, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull says.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/turnbulls-4m-climate-pledge/2007/10/03/1191091180504.html

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 was that the Liberals had been shit on climate change after the 1990 federal election, which they narrowly lost, but in late 2006 had had to modify that because the public was going through one of its periodic “oh, actually, a habitable planet would be quite a nice thing” phases.

The specific context was that the federal election was only a few weeks away, the campaign may have actually already begun, and Turnbull, as Environment Minister, was having to say this sort of crap. 

What I think we can learn from this is that what comes out of a politician’s mouth is usually crap, even more so at election times.

What happened next Turnbull became opposition leader, was then toppled by Tony Abbott, and then five years later toppled Abbott back (this time for the Prime Minister gig), and then, of course, was toppled in a coup, where it was probably Peter Dutton who started it, and Scott Morrison who was the final victor.

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: 

October 3, 1970 & 2008: Nixon creates EPA, Brown creates DECC

October 3, 1975 – Three members of Congress introduce first bill for a national #climate program.

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

October 3, 1970 & 2008: Nixon creates EPA, Brown creates DECC 

October 3, 2011 – “The End of Australia”

Categories
Australia

October 1, 2009 – Malcolm Turnbull says some fateful words

Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 1st, 2009,

 Their concerns were heightened when he [Turnbull] went on ABC Radio on 1 October [2009] and said he would not lead a party that was not as committed to effective action on climate change as he was.

(Cassidy, 2010:22) – Turnbull, fresh off the plane from visiting David ‘Vote Blue Go Green’ Cameron…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386.95ppm. 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 Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 federal election with a more ambitious emissions reduction target than the ALP. They had lost that election very narrowly and blamed the green lobby. Under Prime Minister John Howard, they had been resistant to pretty much everything on climate, especially mitigation. However, in the tail end of Howard’s prime ministership, he had been forced into a U-turn to allow an emissions trading scheme to happen if he were re-elected, though there was lots of fine print. The Labor government under Kevin Rudd, had eventually put forward some terrible legislation, the carbon pollution reduction scheme. This had already been defeated in the Senate once. 

The specific context was that the legislation was going to be reintroduced. Here we see Malcolm Turnbull, who had become Liberal leader by toppling Brendan Nelson saying – probably a little bit jet-lagged – that he would not lead a party that was not as committed as him on climate. And apparently various people listening to the radio thought that was unwise. Rudd had been enjoying watching Turnbull swing in the wind. Turnbull had tried to settle the CPRS legislation, cut a deal. Rudd wasn’t interested.

What I think we can learn from this is that a few fateful words can really be fateful.

What happened next Turnbull was toppled in a leadership spill, and to everyone’s surprise, and many people’s horror, the winner of that leadership spill was Tony Abbott. Abbott then was an extremely effective opposition leader in that he destroyed the credibility, or whatever, of Kevin Rudd, and then of Julia Gillard. 

A lot of what Abbott was good at was focus and vitriol, and this was amplified, of course, by the Murdoch media. Abbott became Prime Minister in 2013 and managed to get rid of Gillard’s emissions trading scheme, and was then himself toppled by Turnbull. It was a right proper soap opera, but not the good kind.

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: 

October 2, 1927/64 – Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar die. 

October 2, 1942 – Spaceflight!! 

October 2, 1961- UNESCO conference on “climatic variations” begins

October 2, 1994 – twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within (Phillip Toyne becomes civil servant) 

October 2, 2014 – Low emission technologies on their way, says Minerals Council of Australia

Categories
Australia

November 26, 2009 – Abbott challenges Turnbull

Sixteen years ago, on this day, November 26th, 2009,

On 26 November 2009, Liberal frontbencher Tony Abbott, reluctant yet determined, confronted his party leader Malcolm Turnbull in his office and instigated an upheaval that would shape Australian politics for years. Abbott asked Turnbull to abandon his support for carbon-pricing. He was accompanied by Senate leader Nick Minchin, the ideological spearhead of the campaign against Turnbull and the engineer of this encounter. This meeting would unleash unpredictable winds that would ruin Turnbull’s leadership, catapult Abbott into the office of Opposition leader and eventually destroy both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.

(Kelly, 2014:18)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 388ppm. 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 that after a very brief attempt to court environmentally-concerned voters in the run-up to the 1990 Federal election (LINK), the Liberals and Nationals decided to hate on the greenies.

The specific context was that Malcolm Turnbull had tried to get his party to go along with Rudd’s dire emissions trading scheme, and had said the fateful phrase “I will not lead a party… LINK.

Now, after having announced that the climate change science was “absolute crap” Tony Abbott was making his move.

What I think we can learn from this – they are all terrible people.

What happened next – Abbott toppled Turnbull, by a single vote. He was then a wrecking ball as an Opposition leader (tremendously effective) and a catastrophically inept Prime Minister.

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: 

November 26, 1979 – CCS first glimmerings, by Albanese and Steinberg 

November 26, 1966 – Conservation Society first meeting 

November 26, 1996 – Australian climate modelling is ridiculed

November 26, 1998 – “National Greenhouse Strategy” (re)-launched

November 26, 2008 – pre-CPRS meeting (yawn)

November 26, 2008 – Climate Change Act becomes law

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 25, 2008 – More economic “modelling” against an emissions trading scheme

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2008 the “sky will fall if we do anything to reduce emissions and here is some economic modelling to ‘prove’ it” bullshit continued, as the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) release ACIL Tasman modelling, which of course gets uncritical splashes in the Murdoch press.

At the same time, will-be Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull joins then-Liberal leader Brendan Nelson in saying “delay the implementation of an emissions trading scheme.”

Federal opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has fallen into step behind his leader, declaring an emission trading scheme shouldn’t be introduced until it is in Australia’s interest.

In government, the coalition supported a start date of 2012, but earlier this week leader Brendan Nelson indicated it would reject the legislation until big polluting countries agreed to reduce their emissions.

Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister, had steadfastly supported a 2012 start date – until now.

“An emissions trading scheme shouldn’t start until it is ready and until it is in Australia’s interest for it to start,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio.

“The government is definitely rushing this, 2010 is far too soon.”

AAP, 2008. Govt ‘rushing’ carbon trading: Turnbull. AAP, 25 July. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 the use of “independent” economic modelling to say that any emissions reductions efforts would lead directly to Stone Age cannibalism was a favoured tactic of the incumbents (why change a game that had been winning since the early 1990s?).

The specific context was John Howard, who had killed off two Emissions Trading Scheme proposals brought to Cabinet in 2000 and 2003 had been forced into a u-turn in late 2006. The next Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had said he’d bring an ETS in, and various incumbent outfits were trying to delay the start date, while also creating all sorts of loopholes and give-aways.

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of policy always have fall-back positions. If they can’t stop something in the short-term, they’ll try to soften the blows. This also means that the policy will probably be less effective and easier to reverse in future. A nice little ancillary benefit…

What happened next – Rudd, and his underling Penny Wong, continued to give ground and give ground. Eventually Rudd’s CPRS scheme failed to get through parliament, thanks to new opposition leader Tony Abbott. Rather than call a double-dissolution election, the spineless Rudd pivoted, and tanked his credibility and popularity, which had remained inexplicably high until that point. All this led indirectly to serious blood-letting and bed-wetting. The Australian Labor Party learned all the wrong lessons, and is now just the PR mouthpiece and stabvest for the mining sector. Oh well, so it goes.

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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia

May 18, 2011- Malcolm Turnbull disses “direct action” on Lateline

Fourteen years ago, on this day, May 18th, 2011,

18 May 2011: Malcolm Turnbull explains on Lateline that direct action is “a very expensive charge on the budget.” He explains its merits are that: “It can be easily terminated. If in fact climate change is proved to be not real”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Turnbull had wanted to cooperate with Rudd on passing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but Rudd was enjoying Turnbull getting roasted by the LNP knuckle-draggers too much and so said no. (Rudd is a weapons-grade jerk. This does not mean Turnbull isn’t one too.) Turnbull lost the leadership of the Liberal Party in November 2009, and lurked on the backbenches.

What I think we can learn from this. It was an awful soap opera. No way to run a country. Pure banana republic stuff…

What happened next. Tony Abbott became Prime Minister and his grotesque inadequacy – obvious to those who disliked him – eventually became apparent to even his “supporters”. Turnbull knifed him in 2015, and then got knifed himself in 2018. It made a Jacobean tragedy look like playschool. Meanwhile, the emissions kept climbing, the impacts became ever more obvious. Dumb as a rock.

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 18, 1953 – Newsweek covers climate change. Yes, 1953.

May 18, 1967 – NA Leslie at Institute of Petroleum, citing Barry Commoner on C02 build up – All Our Yesterdays

May 18, 1976 – US congress begins hearings on #climate

May 18, 2006- Denialist nutjobs do denialist nutjobbery. Again.

Categories
Australia

November 24, 2009 – the Climate War in Australia goes kinetic…

On this day, November 24, 2009, the Liberals and Nationals finally decide there are more votes in rage than in the future…

The pivotal event was the Coalition party meeting of 24 November [2009] to consider the shadow cabinet recommendation to support Rudd’s amended scheme. This meeting determined the future of conservative politics for many years, and its consequences for Australia were far-reaching. The debate began at 10am with a briefing from Macfarlane who called the deal ‘exceptional’. Most backbenchers struggled with its complexity. The meeting ran for more than seven hours, with two breaks. Its disputed outcome was an insight into the arcane nature of political rituals.

Kelly, (2014:252)

The context was that, despite having gone to the 1990 Federal Election with a stronger climate target than the ALP, the Liberals and Nationals decided that the scientists were lying, physics was wrong and there was nothing to worry about. That held until 2006, when Prime Minister John Howard had been forced into another of his U-turns, and had announced the “Shergold Report” – a “limited hangout” of an emissions trading scheme. It had convinced nobody and Howard was swept from office in November 2007. The Liberals had started to backtrack on climate under the first Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson. Once Malcolm Turnbull had taken over, things shifted back. But Turnbull, disliked by his own party and also wounded by a shoot-self-in-foot scandal earlier, was in a weak position…

What we can learn is that big events don’t need big causes. It can all go horribly wrong for no particular reason (though by this time the Australian Coal Association had properly got itself going on the anti-carbon pricing campaigning. Again.

What happened next

Turnbull was sacked. His replacement was not, as many expected, Joe Hockey, but thugchild Tony Abbott. And the climate wars properly kicked off…

Categories
Australia

 July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 7, 2008, the Liberal Party in Australia, perhaps bewildered to be in Opposition, started backtracking from the (pissweak) commitments it had taken to the 2007 Federal election.

THE Coalition split over climate change policy is growing, with Brendan Nelson refusing to embrace publicly the policy he has agreed to in private with senior colleagues.

Dr Nelson refused again yesterday to state simply that the Coalition supported the introduction of an emissions trading scheme regardless of whether the world’s major polluters were also prepared to act.

While taking an increasingly sceptical line towards climate change, the Opposition Leader denied there was an internal split over policy, claiming instead that it was “a question of emphasis”.

But he is falling foul of senior colleagues including the deputy leader Julie Bishop, the shadow treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull, and the environment spokesman, Greg Hunt.

Until this week the Coalition policy was to introduce a domestic emissions trading scheme no later than 2012.

On Monday [7 July] Dr Nelson walked away from that, saying nothing should be done until major polluters such as China and India were also committed, otherwise it would be economic suicide.

Coorey, P. 2008. Party lurches as Nelson shifts climate course. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 July

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Brendan Nelson had become leader of the Liberals after John Howard had lost his seat in the 2007 election. Let’s say that again. John Howard lost his seat in the 2007. Election. Nelson was by this time finding it pretty hard to square the circle because many Liberal MPs and especially National Party MPs, (the party the Liberals were in coalition with) did not like the idea that the hippies had been right and that greenhouse gases were something to worry about. And he was finding it hard to square the circle. And by this time, he must have known that Malcolm Turnbul, the ambitious  merchant wanker was circling, wanting the top job. 

What I think we can learn from this is that climate change is driving us mad both as individuals but also as organisations. It is an impossible object, a bit like what Captain Picard wanted to implant in the captured Borg in that episode of Star Trek. It is simply driving everyone mad because to use an old Marxist bit of jargon, “the contradictions” cannot be contained and papered over indefinitely.

What happened next is that Turnbull knifed Nelson, tried to bring the Liberals along with climate policy, was left swinging by Kevin Rudd, was then toppled and took everyone by surprise. Tony Abbott became opposition leader. Turnbull eventually toppled Abbott as Prime Minister in 2015. Yes, this is a soap opera. And then Turnbull was himself toppled as Prime Minister. And one of the people who voted against him in that leadership contest mentioned, Brendan Nelson The writers of the soap opera have clearly been paying attention to the back catalogue, and taking way too much acid.

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.

Categories
Australia

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 19, 2009, the leader of the Liberal Party gets in a snit because business is – gasp – happy enough with the weak policy being proposed by the Australian Labor Party (then in government).

MALCOLM Turnbull has attacked big business for “snuggling up” to Labor, demanding business publicly back the Coalition strategy of amending and then passing the government’s emissions trading laws.

In a blunt exchange with about 30 chief executives at a Business Council of Australia breakfast at Parliament House on Wednesday, [17]Mr Turnbull attacked business for being “intimidated” into supporting the government and for failing to publicly push for amendments to the laws.

Taylor, L. 2009. Opposition tells industry: don’t `snuggle up’ to Labor — Turnbull puts heat on business. The Australian, 19 June, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Malcolm Turnbull as the new Liberal Party leader needed to attack Labor, get business on side and not lose his own support. This was always going to be tricky given the competing and frankly irreconcilable demands.

What I think we can learn from this

A political party has explicit ideological needs, whereas business needs to cuddle up to whoever is in government and to keep selling stuff to people even when they’re having one of the periodic fits of “Let’s save the Planet.” Therefore business is going to take a more rational clear-eyed reality-based focus. This can be hard for a political party – especially one which takes business support for granted – to understand.

What happened next

Turnbull tried to take the carbon pricing issue off the table sending his Chief of staff Chris Kenny to talk with Rhodes chief of staff but no dice road was enjoying Turnbull’s agony too much. See Paul Kelly’s book Triumph and Demise for the gory details. Turnbull then lost his position as Liberal party leader to Tony Abbott, who came out swinging against doing anything on climate change.

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.

Categories
Australia

November 6, 2009 – Kevin Rudd playing politics with the climate

On this day, November 6 in 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave a speech at the Lowy Institute about climate change, ahead of his second go at getting legislation through Parliament, and with the Copenhagen Conference coming up.  And he enjoyed poking Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull in the chest

“The clock is ticking for the planet, but [the] vested interests at work are simply too great”

Rudd had not really done very much talking about climate change over the previous two years (except when a policy document was landing). A February 2010 article by journo Peter Hartcher  claimed Rudd’s climate silence had been deliberate, since it meant the media would be attacking Liberals a lot. Who knows. Certainly Rudd could have been out there explaining the basics and explaining the danger, instead of occasional soundbites. 

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

The context was this – 

Turnbull had made false accusations about Rudd and corruption a few months previously (“Godwin Gretch”). Rudd was enjoying the Liberals and Nationals fighting each other, weakening Turnbull.

Why this matters. 

No issue – even the end of the world – is off limits to politicians engaged in their usual positioning and fighting. An active civil society might have kept a lid on that, a bit, I guess. We’re so toast.

What happened next?

Turnbull got replaced by Tony Abbott.  Rudd’s legislation failed, (and yes, the Greens didn’t vote for it), Copenhagen was a disaster and Rudd didn’t have the spine and good sense to do what his advisers were begging him to do – call a double dissolution election about climate change.  He then pissed off Julia Gillard one time too many, she rolled him and…. Oh, it’s so exhausting to recount.

Categories
Australia

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

On this day, November 2 in 2009, 

Abbott had dropped his daughters at the bus stop and was driving back across Roseville Bridge at about 7.30am when he turned on 2GB and heard Malcolm Turnbull having a set-to with Alan Jones. If you listen to a tape of that 2 November 2009 exchange now, you hear Turnbull refusing to kowtow to Jones, who becomes hysterically agitated about the ‘hoax’ of global warming and a secret deal by world leaders which will bleed $50 billion from Australia and send it off to South America. Turnbull is sharp with Jones once or twice, asking to be heard, reminding him his heroes Margaret Thatcher and John Howard wanted action on global warming: ‘Don’t you think,’ asks the leader of the Opposition, ‘you sound like the old lady who says the whole world is mad except for thee and me, and I have my doubts about thee?’

Abbott thought Turnbull’s leadership was terminal at that moment. What he was hearing was  bar-room brawl between his leader and the guru of a great swathe of the Liberal Party. This was no way to deal with Alan Jones. Turnbull wasn’t showing the necessary respect. It would cause immense damage.

(Marr, 2012:73)

[see also Paul Kelly “Triumph and Demise” on same period – Turnbull trying to get CPRS through with Rudd enjoying his pain too much to bother making a deal. You never hear the ALP talk about that – instead they like to bash the Greens…]

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 385ish ppm. At time of writing it was 41ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

John Howard had resisted any climate action for as long as possible, but finally in late 2006 had switched too a fallback of asking a civil servant to look at emissions trading – the Shergold Report, as much of a u-turn as you were going to get. He then got blown away in the November 2007 elections by Kevin “I’m from Queensland, I’m here to help” Rudd. Turnbull had overthrown first post-Howard Lib leader, Brendan Nelso, brought some Libs with him, not others….

Why this matters. 

We should always be alert to “but for a nail the battle was lost” and just how mad-as-a-box-of-frogs-left-on-the-back-seat-of-a-Ute the internal dynamics of political parties can be.

What happened next?

The Climate Wars