Tag: Robert Hill

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

December 8, 1997 – Gore and Hill at Kyoto

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, December 8th, 1997,

Al Gore, then Vice-President of the United States, there at Kyoto. And on the same day

“Senator Hill’s entrance was a bit rockier, with a smaller Australian demonstration led by Greens’ Senator Dee Margetts jostling him on his entrance to the main summit hall. Two hours after Mr Gore, Senator Hill rushed through his speech – the 16th out of 67 – in front of a half-empty hall.”

Lunn, S. 1997. US juggernaut swamps small beer at Kyoto. The Australian, December 9, p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 UNFCCC had been kneecapped at birth by the US refusing to allow targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries into the treaty’s text. George HW Bush said he’d boycott the Earth Summit if they weren’t removed from the draft text – and the French blinked. Everything since then has been an attempt to get some targets in. The Paris farce is the latest and the last (presumably).

The specific context was in the run up to Kyoto there were fierce public campaigns, funded by the oil companies etc, against Kyoto. Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister John Howard had been trying to get people to accept the ridiculous position that Australia deserved special treatment (he succeeded).

What I think we can learn from this – we were doomed a long time ago.

What happened next – The US pulled out of Kyoto negotiations at the beginning of 2001. Australia followed the next year, despite having extorted an insanely generous deal. 

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: 

December 8, 1976 – IIASA holds a workshop on climate and solar energy conversion 

December 8, 1981 – Thames TV shows “Warming Warning” documentary

December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Categories
Australia

August 10, 2000 – States’ greenhouse gas failure

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2000 – as part of the “we’re gonna do stuff, and the states aren’t doing their bit” strategy, Environment Minister Robert Hill is dishing out smears.

“State governments – including South Australia – have failed “abysmally” to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions satisfactorily, Environment Minister Robert Hill said yesterday. Senator Hill said most states would achieve only half the cuts they had promised two years ago on signing the National Greenhouse Strategy.”

Anon, 2000. States’ greenhouse gas failure. Adelaide Advertiser, August 11, p. 13.

The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Hill, yesterday threatened to withhold up to $400 million in State funding for greenhouse gas abatement, and said NSW was more interested in producing “glossy brochures” than in taking real action. [POTS AND KETTLES]

The threat came as he said he believed the United States would ratify the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions regardless of who won this year’s presidential election. In addition, he said the Government would announce in a few months an early-credit scheme to encourage businesses to keep reducing emissions even before the protocol was ratified.

Senator Hill’s statements follow BHP’s threat last week to opt out of the Federal Government’s Greenhouse Challenge program, saying there were inadequate incentives to reduce emissions.

Clennell, A. 2000. Style Put Ahead Of Substance On Greenhouse: Hill. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 August, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 Federal Government was happy to blame state governments when it suited their interests – state-federal tensions are hardly new.

The specific context was that Howard and his colleagues were engaging in the usual blame-shifting.

What I think we can learn from this – Federal systems have more room for experimentation, but also blame-shifting.

What happened next Howard kept on blocking all action, including undermining the growth of renewables etc etc. Criminal.

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 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Australia

June 29, 2000 – promises of salvation via… vibes

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 29th, 2000.

POWER INDUSTRY GREEN LIGHT FOR GREENHOUSE CUTS

Environment Minister Robert Hill says Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will be dramatically reduced when new efficiency standards are introduced for power stations from July 1st.

Senator Hill said it’s expected the new standards for fossil fuel generators will lead to a cut of about four million tonnes of carbon emissions each year.

“This achievement, the equivalent of taking over one million cars permanently off the road, would not have been possible without the co-operation of industry,” Senator Hill said.

Media Release

Senator the Hon Robert Hill

Leader of the Government in the Senate

Minister for the Environment and Heritage

29 June 2000

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/archive/env/2000/mr29jun200.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.8ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Prime Minister John Howard had made it very clear he did not believe that climate change was a problem, and that Australia should not have signed the UNFCCC.  However, he needed to pretend to give a bit of a damn, to keep intelligent Liberal voters (they exist) on side/able to pretend that “Liberal values” weren’t going to trash Australia.  So, various bullshit PR stunts – like the “Greenhouse Challenge” and so on, were rolled out.

What I think we can learn from this.  There was, until Trump, a tendency of the knuckle-draggers to pretend that they gave a damn. Now they don’t bother so much….

What happened next  Howard killed off two Emissions Trading Schemes (one in August 2000 and another in mid-2003).  When climate change became a salient political issue in late 2006 he tried a pivot, but nobody believed him.

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: 

June 29, 1979 – G7 says climate change matters. Yes, 1979. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

 May 30, 1996 – Minerals Council investment pays off, again…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, May 30th, 1996,

The Federal Government’s promise of no new taxes included carbon and other so-called greenhouse taxes, the Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, told the Minerals Council of Australia in Canberra yesterday

Callick, R. (1996) Greenhouse tax off the agenda, Hill tells miners. Australian Financial Review, May 31

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the fossil fuel lobby had been fighting – half-assedly but with structural advantages and then cleverly and successfully – against any carbon pricing since the late 1980s.  They’d created something called the (Australian) Industry Greenhouse Network in the early 1990s, and it had spearheaded the fight against the Toyne/Faulkner carbon tax proposal of 1994.  But the Australian Mining Industry Council had gone Too Far on the question of Aboriginal land rights. They’d had to call in one of capitalism’s fixers – Geoff Allen – and on his advice rebrand as the Minerals Council of Australia and change their CEO. Once that was done, both Labor and Liberal meatpuppets, sorry, “politicians” were happy to bend the knee.

What I think we can learn from this. The trade associations are a good (not perfect, but good) barometer of what a sector wants and how the state responds.

What happened next. The MCA kept on winning. Which meant everyone bar the C-suite and the shareholders kept losing. And the losing accelerated.

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 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

May 30, 2007 – Kevin Rudd pledges to ratify Kyoto, set emissions target and create an ETS

Categories
Australia

May 22, 2000 – Industry versus the greenhouse trigger…

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, May 22nd, 2000,

Industry started a strong campaign against the Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill’s, proposed greenhouse trigger yesterday. This follows a fiery Cabinet discussion on Tuesday [23rd] over new greenhouse measures proposed by the Senator.

The Federal Cabinet is understood to have reached a clear understanding on Tuesday that no extra greenhouse requirements should be imposed on the proposed $1billion Kogan Creek power station in Queensland.

It rejected a memo from Senator Hill that the project be forced to invest in greenhouse-abatement projects to offset its own emissions. However, a spokesman for the Environment Minister said the Cabinet had not made a final decision.

2000 Taylor, L. 2000. Industry adds its weight to oppose greenhouse move. Australian Financial Review, 25 May 25, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in the lead up to the Kyoto COP in late 1997 Prime Minister John Howard had been forced to make some public promises about climate action.  He’d then done everything he could to drag his heels/slow things down.  But the pressure was still there, and there was another election coming.

What I think we can learn from this is that Australian politicians have been trying to do as little as they can get away with for a very long time.

What happened next. The greenhouse trigger was defeated – god forbid that Ministers would have to take a credibility hit to wave through dodgy projects every time a dodgy project came along… Soon, they’d have no credibility left…

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 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 25, 2000 – “Beyond Kyoto”  more meaningless blather by Australian politicians

On this day 25 years ago, April 25, 2000, the Federal Environment Minister, Robert Hill spoke at a meeting to the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in Washington, ‘Beyond Kyoto: Australia’s efforts to combat global warming’, 25 April 2000,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that Australia had extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (Hill had received a standing ovation at Cabinet afterwards). But it had leaked in 1998 that Howard was only going to ratify the deal if the US did (up in the air, with the 2000 election forthcoming). So Hill had to pretend all was well. And people had to pretend to be going along with that. Rude not to.

What we learn. It’s all kayfabe, innit?

What happened next. The Supreme Court handed George W Bush the 2000 election. In March 2001 he pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Australian Prime Minister John Howard waited until World Environment Day 2002 before doing same. Why the delay? Probably just because he liked watching the greenies twist in the wind? For the shingles, in other words.

Also on this day

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is) 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

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

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

October 6, 1997 – Australia says nope to uniform emissions 5% cut. Assholes.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 6th, 1997,

Senator Robert Hill, the federal Minister for the Environment, rejected Japan’s proposal of a 5% uniform reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2012 on the basis that it would result in unacceptable job losses in Australia (ABC television 7.00 pm news 6.10.97)

(Duncan, 1997:10)

Same day President Bill Clinton hosts pre-Kyoto climate conference at the White House… (see New York Times coverage here).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard as prime minister had taken hostility of Australian political elites to the climate treaty from a solid eight through to 11. (“This one goes up to 11.”) And he had sent diplomats around the world over the course of 1997 to try and convince everyone that Australia deserved special treatment at the impending Kyoto meeting, without much success, it has to be said. The Americans were mocking him. Anyway, this above one attempt to break the logjam by the hosts. The Japanese posed an across the board 5% cut from everyone. Now this wouldn’t have been in keeping with the science but it was a bid worth making. The fact that Australia just turned round with a flat rejection tells you plenty.

What we learn is that Australian political elites just don’t give a shit about the future. All they care about is filling their own pockets with loot in the here and now. This is not uncommon, of course.

What happened next? Howard was rewarded for his efforts. Australia managed to get not only 108% so called reductions target, i.e. they got to increase their emissions. But also just through sheer trickery and nastiness they managed to get a land clearing clause backdated to 1990. So that in effect, the emissions reduction target was 130% essentially, de facto if not the jure. 

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: 

October 6, 1988 – coal lobby says greenhouse effect “greatly exaggerated”

October 6, 1989 – Hawke Government given climate heads up by top scientist

October 6, 2005 – carbon capture is doable…

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

July 25, 2001 – Australian Environment Minister says the quiet part out loud about Kyoto

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2001, the truth is told about Australia’s climate change targets.,

2001 – Then-environment minister Robert Hill admitted on July 25, immediately after the Kyoto Protocol had been further weakened at the UN conference in Germany, that “it could well be possible to achieve our target with the measures we now have in place”.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/bush-threatens-worlds-climate

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process was in deep shit. It has ended in acrimony without any closing statement or anything. In November/December, the previous year in The Hague(which is where the climate criminals belong, but, that’s another blog post).

 Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. And so, here, in Bonn, they were stitching the pieces back together again. And the Australian environment minister, Robert Hill, said the quiet part out loud when he admitted that Australia had basically carved out such an insanely generous deal in December 1997, that it was going to hit its targets without doing much of anything.

What we learn – if you listen closely, you can figure out what’s going on. It’s not rocket science.

What happened next? 

In June of 2002, finally, to nobody’s surprise, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said no to Kyoto, I think simply because he enjoyed “owning the libs.” There was no upside in it for him really. And it would mean that Australia was beholden to future stuff, and he could much more easily stay pals with George W. Bush. I guess ratifying Kyoto would have annoyed Bush since it would have isolated the US even further. So they didn’t do it. Kyoto was only finally ratified by Australia in December 2007 by Kevin Rudd.

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 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.