Tag: Robert Hill

Categories
Australia Business Responses

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 5th, 2000 former Federal public servant turned BCA Boss David Buckingham opined on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues for Australia.” Business Council of Australia

http://www.bca.com.au/media/strategic-greenhouse-issues-for-australia

Suggests a voluntary domestic emissions trading scheme might be a goer, as a “learning by doing” exercise.

See also Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill 2000. Warming to the Challenge; The Role of Australian Business in Combating Global warming. Address to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development and the Australian Business Council Forum, Melbourne, 5 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were various big conferences being held because there had been the Kyoto Protocol, at the end of ‘97. It looked like Al Gore would be the Democratic Party nominee for the president, and he might win, in which case the US would be taking more climate action, even if Kyoto itself weren’t necessarily on the cards. And therefore, everyone was making plans to be ready for that reality if it emerged in Australia. Yes, the Lavoisier group had been set up, but there were also tensions within the peak bodies, especially the Business Council of Australia about what the Australian response should be of interest in carbon trading, carbon farming and offsets and money to be made. 

And so it wasn’t a simple case of denial or bowing down before the great God of technology, at least not for the more thoughtful members of the business policy outfits. And here we have David Buckingham, who had been a Federal Environment civil servant, before being poached, first by the Minerals Council and then the Business Council. 

What we learn from this is that business was seriously scratching its head about what might be coming and how best to take advantage of what might be coming. 

What happened next? Well, Bush was selected president by his dad’s Supreme Court chums and then quickly pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. In 2003, the BCA had to move from opposition to Kyoto ratification to a “neutral” stance because of fierce fights within it. 

And of course, the emissions kept climbing. 

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 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

Categories
Australia

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

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 26, 1998, yet another “National Greenhouse Strategy” was launched in Australia. Utterly meaningless of course.

Robert Hill launches the National Greenhouse Strategy (just a ‘refresh’, basically – bureaucratic games…)

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F39006%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been the “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” dribbled out in December 1992, which was a lot of fine words stripped of all meaning after the defeat of the people in favour of sanity during the ecologically sustainable development process.

The Howard government, re-elected in October 1988 thought they needed to pretend that they’re doing something. The AGO has been launched, but the Renewable Energy Target was still being kicked down the road, down the road, down the road demoralising environmentalists and investors.

What I think we can learn from this

Just because it is said by a “serious” person doesn’t mean it ain’t kayfabe.

What happened next

The National Greenhouse Strategy went nowhere. Of course, it was always designed that way, and anyone who thought otherwise was either naive or cynical. And emissions kept climbing.

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 Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Twenty five years ago, on this day, April 29, 1998, Australian Environment Minister Robert HIll signed the Kyoto Protocol while in New York.

 As distinct from ratifying it… Robert Hill in New York…

R Hill (Minister for the Environment),Hill signs historic agreement to fight global warming, media release, 29 April, 1998.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had secured an absurdly sweet deal at Kyoto. The so-called reduction target meant it could increase its emissions to 112%, and 130%  once a land clearing clause loophole was taken into account. 

It wasn’t clear at this stage whether Australia would try to ratify the Kyoto Protocol –  a federal election was due relatively soon. And so it was mostly harmless signing. So they did it. And not signing would have caused more trouble than it was worth.

What I think we can learn from this

You have to know the details of a process, so you don’t get over-excited about what (you want it to) mean.

What happened next

In September of 1998 it was leaked that the Cabinet had agreed that Australia would not ratify unless the US did. And the US was very unlikely to do that. In the end, in 2002, on Earth Day, because he has a sense of humour. Prime Minister John Howard, to no one’s great surprise, but many people’s shock and dismay, announced Australia would not, in fact, ratify Kyoto.

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

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Twenty three years ago, on this day, April 3, 2000, Australian diplomats once again spread bullshit rather than truth about climate change.

At the  Pacific Islands Conference on Climate Change, Climate Variability and Sea Level Rise, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, well, see a contemporary account…

Mr Hare said he had recently been to a Pacific greenhouse conference in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, [3-7 April – where Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials had tried to play down the impact of the greenhouse effect. He said they had put up arguments that sea level rises were not as high as had been reported and might not necessarily be a result of global warming. Senator Hill said if the department’s officials were mounting that argument, it might be on the basis of scientific uncertainty in the area.. 

Clennel, A. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Conference `stacked’. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 April, p.15 

See here too.

 [Compare with Australian diplomats rumoured behaviour at the first IPCC report meeting in Sundsvall in August 1990]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Howard Government had bludgeoned its way into a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto, but it was obvious they would not ratify unless the Americans did (vanishingly small chance of that).  Meanwhile, the Australian diplomatic corps(e) was continuing its minimisation techniques (as per the Sundsvall meeting in 1990). 

What I think we can learn from this

Bureaucrats have their own views, and run their own games.  To think of them as merely passive lackeys of elected politicians is very naive.

What happened next

The oceans have kept on rising. Australia has kept on being a villain. The small island states have kept pointing out that in the absence of serious action, they are screwed (they are screwed).

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 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).