Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 9th, 1996,
FUEL and power subsidies, poor planning and political inaction have slowed Australia’s drive to cut its greenhouse emissions, a government advisory panel has warned.
The National Greenhouse Advisory Panel, representing industry, conservation, science and community sectors, has advised the Federal and State governments to consider imposing firm targets for greenhouse reductions in the manufacturing, agriculture, transport and household sectors.
It has urged governments to start planning for the effects of higher temperatures and rising sea levels caused by global warming next century.
NGAP’s chairman, Professor Paul Greenfield of the University of Queensland, yesterday said the panel’s two-year review of Australia’s official greenhouse policy had identified “shortfalls”. “There needs to be a bit of revitalisation in the response,” he told The Australian, on the eve of United Nations negotiations in Geneva for a new climate change treaty.
Bita, N. 1996. Subsidies slow greenhouse drive. The Australian, 9 July, p.2.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 the international negotiations around climate change had been a problem for Australia’s political elites from the get go. The first major promise (full of caveats) had been made in 1990, just ahead of the second World Climate Conference. Then, in the 1994-5 a carbon tax campaign got as far as it did because the Australians needed SOMETHING in their hands at COP1 in Berlin. Now, with the expectation that rich countries would sign on to emissions reductions at the Kyoto Conference in 1997, the pressure was on again.
The specific context was that the NGAP had been set up in 1994, just as the carbon tax campaign was gearing up. It had held meetings, produced reports – you know the drill…
What I think we can learn from this – you should always be SUPER skeptical about important sounding advisory panels/committees etc, full of the Great And the Good – they’re often a stabvest for business as usual elites and a sandpit for well-meaning liberals to play in.
What happened next – the NGAP was killed off by Howard, without so much as a thank you to the participants. An “Australian Greenhouse Office” – more funding, but same dynamic, “replaced” it.
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 8, 1962 – New York Times on ‘Glasshouse Effect”
July 8, 1970 – Environmental Protection Agency formed
July 8, 1991 – UK Prime Minister chides US on #climate change