Tag: Sydney Morning Herald

Categories
Australia

August 23, 1997- Sydney Morning Herald does some Clintonian wish-casting…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 23rd, 1997,

United States officials expect Australia’s maverick greenhouse position to be blown away in a “big bang” at the climate change convention in Kyoto, according to confidential reports by Australian diplomats obtained by the Herald…. The documents are confidential internal communications between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra and Australian embassies.

They detail Australia’s desperate globe-trotting efforts to undermine the push for international agreement on binding, uniform targets to reduce greenhouse emissions, initially for developed nations.

In June, for example, one senior Canberra official went to Seoul and promoted the economic benefits of a “free ride” to South Korea – a key developing nation – rather than it having to face the high cost of any future emissions control regime. [Compare Exxon doing the same thing with China]

Hogarth, M. 1997. Why Our Stand On Climate Change Is Doomed. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 US under George H. W. Bush had succeeded in eliminating emissions reductions, targets and timetables for rich countries from the text of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Australia had gone along with that, probably quite happily. The administration under Democrat Bill Clinton had tried to take some energy efficiency conservation action with its BTU tax, and had been soundly defeated. Here we see Clinton at the beginning of his second term, after having given a speech in 1996 at the Great Barrier Reef, beginning to flex muscles ahead of COP 3, which was to be held in Kyoto.

The specific context was that the Australians were pursuing a particularly aggressive line against Australia having any discernible ambitious targets on emissions reductions. This was against the mood music that the Americans, especially under Senator Tim Wirth, as Clinton’s climate envoy were wanting to put forward, so the Clinton gang were talking about how Australia was isolated and would be more isolated and would suffer significant diplomatic consequences for its stance. And for whatever reason, the Sydney Morning Herald was going along with that wish casting. 

What I think we can learn from this – occasionally the mood-music out of Washington is a better form of kayfabe (see, for example, Obama in 2014).

What happened next – Australia got an insanely generous deal at Kyoto, through exasperation and exhaustion at its intransigence.

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: 

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

August 23, 1989 – Space Mirrors proposed to combat global warming. I am not making this up.

August 23, 2000 – Nick Minchin in gloat mode

August 23, 2002 – Stafford Beer dies

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

August 21, 2000 – Renewables boast a hoax

Twenty six years ago, on this day, August 21st, 2000,

One of the Federal Government’s key boasts on greenhouse gases that it is legislating so electricity suppliers must increase their power from renewable sources by 2 per cent by 2010 has been called a hoax.

According to industry estimates, growth is occurring at that rate anyway.

And the Opposition has been criticised for signalling that it will pass the Government’s Renewable Energy Bill in its present form, which allows burning wood from native forests to create energy to be taken into account in determining whether the target has been met.

At present, 10.7 per cent of the country’s energy comes from renewable sources. The bill would lift that to 12.7 per cent by 2010. The bill, which also applies to major electricity buyers, such as the aluminium industry, will go to the Senate later this month.

The Australian Conservation Foundation yesterday accused Dr Sharman Stone, parliamentary secretary to the Environment Minister, Senator Hill, of issuing a misleading media release. It had said wind farms, solar-driven manufacturing, tidal power and energy from methane were “destined to become a growing part of Australia’s energy options” because of the legislation.

“This is the great renewable hoax,” the foundation’s campaign director, Mr John Connor, said. “It will be woodchip-driven stuff, and there’s basic problems … legislation which just won’t drive the kind of industries [we should] base the economy on.”

Clennell, A. 2000. Government Greenhouse Gases Boast A Hoax, Says Environmental Group. Sydney Morning Herald, August 22, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. 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 Australian governments, state and federal, had intermittently made supportive noises in the general direction of renewables, but had usually not provided funding or significant financial incentives. My favourite example is how in 1994-95 a proposal for a carbon tax where some of the profits were hypothecated towards research and development of renewables was shot down by opponents within the Labor Party before it got to cabinet. 

The specific context was in 1997 ahead of the Kyoto conference, Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard had, with some fanfare, produced a Safeguarding the Future policy, which included a promise of a 2% renewables per target for Australian electricity provision. Howard then slow-walked the policy implementation, so that it became a much smaller amount, and here we see various environmental groups pointing this out for all the good it did. 

What I think we can learn from this is that at time of writing or narrating, John Howard is still alive, and there is still time to get him to The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity and other species, and he has very little defence, And standing next to him in the dock should be Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, and most of all Anthony Albanese, Julia Gillard squeaks her way out by the skin of her teeth, but as well as these meat puppets, lots of industry figures whose names we barely know should also be in the dock as well and this will not happen.

What happened next LETAG. Vestas (LINKS)

xxx

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: 

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference

August 21, 1972 – Nature editor John Maddox says C02-temperature fear “found wanting”

August 21, 1986 – Lake Nyos disaster

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS

Categories
Australia Denial UNFCCC

July 15,  1996 – Geneva games

Thirty years ago, on this day, July  11st, 1996,

The Australian Democrats have publicly undermined the Howard Government’s strategy at the historic climate change summit in Geneva by urging the meeting’s president to ignore whatever arguments Australia’s delegation puts forward.

This is an extraordinary break with diplomatic convention, under which domestic political disputes are left behind at international meetings.

The Democrats’ leader, Senator Kernot, and deputy leader, Senator Meg Lees, last night faxed a three-page letter to the summit president, Mr Chen Chimutengwende, asking him not to be “fooled by the Government’s slick-talking attempt to avoid its responsibilities to all other governments concerned with the impact of climate change”.

Gilchrist, G. (1996) Kernot Breaks Ranks On Climate Sydney Morning Herald, July 16 page 2

And

On July 15, 1996, at an international negotiating conference in Geneva, Patrick Michaels released an article, title “New Data Cast Doubt on Human Fingerprint,” that criticised the Nature article [of Santer et al]

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 22.

And

On July 15, 1996, at an international negotiating conference in Geneva, Patrick Michaels released an article, title “New Data Cast Doubt on Human Fingerprint,” that criticised the Nature article [of Santer et al]

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. 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 after an initial bout of helpfulness/proactive behaviour (1988-1989), the Australian government had moved towards petulance on the path to obstruction under late-Hawke and Keating (Prime Ministers).

The specific context was in March 1996 Liberal John Howard had become Prime Minister. He was adamantly opposed to all climate action.  The 2nd COP would be his first big test. On his lights, he ‘passed it’.  For the planet? Not so much.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is not too late to get John Howard to the Hague for crimes against humanity.

What happened next – the next COP, Kyoto, would end in “success”.  Many more “successes” like that followed.  The carbon dioxide kept accumulating. 

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 1996 – Business Council of Australia versus even the idea of a carbon tax

July 8, 1996 – National Greenhouse Advisory Panel tells the truth…

July 11, 1996 – Celebrity Death Match: Australian fossil fuels industry versus The World (Spoiler: world lost)

July 12, 1996 – medics slam energy companies for outright denial and obstruction

July 14, 1996 – Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace

July 18, 1996 – Geneva Ministerial Declaration noted but not adopted

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: 

July 15, 1968 – first(?) UK government attention to the possibility of climate change 

July 15, 1972 – Soviet Weekly on how man affects the weather… 

July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate” 

July 15, 1988 – “Racing on Capitol Hill for Title of “Mr Greenhouse” 

July 15, 1991 – RIP Roger Revelle 

July 15, 1994 – ALP and BCA in good cop bad cop routine 

July 15, 2005 – The “Stern Review” into #climate is announced…

Categories
Activism Australia

July 4, 1971 – Ecology Action puff piece in Sydney Morning Herald

Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 4th, 1971, a new eco-group gets some publicity in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. 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 from late 1969 Australia (as part of a global trend) experienced increased alarm about environmental problems.  Various factors, including the publication of the Torrey Canyon, Population Bomb, the Earthrise photo, the Santa Barbara oil spill and action in the US.  New groups had been forming through the 1960s (e.g. the Australian Conservation Society), mostly arranged around the idea of politely lobbying.

The specific context was that there were various local struggles going on in Sydney and New South Wales (Clutha etc) and it was pretty clear that the government of Robin Askew was in no mood to pretend to be at all green.  (It was famously corrupt, even by NSW standards). 

What I think we can learn from this

People could see the ordinary ways weren’t gonna cut it.

What happened next

Ecology Action lasted about ten years. I looked through its newsletters at the National Library of Australia, back in the day.  Virtually nothing (as you’d expect) on carbon dioxide build-up.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

Jim Hagan (1972) Clutha: The politics of pollution, Politics, 7:2, 136-148, DOI:

10.1080/00323267208401287

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: 

July 4, 1957 – popular UK magazine The Listener mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 4, 1989 – UK Energy Committee ponders greenhouse implications 

July 4, 1996 – article in Nature saying ‘it’s partly us’

July 4, 2004 – @WWF_Australia try to shame John Howard into #climate action…

July 4, 2008 – Garnaut’s draft report released  

Categories
Science

January 23, 2001 – alarming predictions

Twenty five  years ago, on this day, January 23rd, 2001, 

World temperatures may increase by as much as six degrees Celsius over the next century, leading climate change scientists say in an alarming report that adds new urgency to the warnings on global warming.

The projected increase, which would be the most rapid temperature change in the past 10,000 years, is expected to push sea levels up by nearly a metre, threatening tens of millions of people, and generate more floods, droughts and fires.

The report found that the 1990s were the hottest decade since instrument records were first taken in 1861 and that 1998 was the hottest year. And for the first time scientists agreed that the warming is mostly due to human activity.

The gloomy prognosis was released in Shanghai yesterday by the respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a joint project of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation.

International Climate Change Taskforce report

2001 Schauble, J. 2001. Six Degrees Hotter: Global Climate Alarm Bells Ring Louder. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been warning about CO2 build up causing warming in the 20th century of significant proportion since – well, you can say Calendar in 1938 but I really think Gilbert Plass in 1953 is the point at which people start to pay attention, (some attention). And by the late 1970s as you’ll see from the CO2 Newsletter, The warnings were firm, firm enough to alarm scientists and some politicians.

The IPCC was created to provide, well, to provide scientific imprimatur, but also to make sure that the independent scientists didn’t get paid too much attention, as they had over ozone. 

The specific context was that by 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Report was coming out.  T

What I think we can learn from this is that we should remember is that scientists have to cope with the fact that journalists will either misunderstand the research because it’s complex and new,, or they will overstate it and “sex up the dossier” in search of a bigger, bolder headline, and then the scientist catches it in the neck for what the journalist wrote. You also get the need for the media system to just go to extremes. And the examples I’d use from 1988 are Steven Schneider being disinvited because he wasn’t alarmist enough. And also a hack said to Robyn Williams of the ABC Science Show “oh, now we’ll need the backlash.”

What happened next

That trouble ahead! We kept burning fossil fuels, and CO2 kept accumulating in the atmosphere. And, you know, the rest,

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: 

January 23, 1957 – New Zealand scientist warns about consequences of carbon dioxide build-up  

January 23, 1992 – denialist bullshit in the Fin

January 23, 1995 – The Larsen B starts to break up with us.. (Ice, Ice, baby)

Categories
Australia

 December 11, 1966- “Science and Survival” reviewed in Sydney Morning Herald

Fifty nine years ago, on this day, December 11th, 1966,

Peter Finley (presumably Times?) reviewing Science and Survival. 

Reprinted in Sydney Morning Herald 11 December 1966

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LqEpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7-cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1390%2C4487624

And he cites examples to show that it is.

“We are burning fuel at such a rate that by AD2000 the amount of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be sufficient to raise the temperature of the earth to the point that the Antarctic ice cap begins to melt.

Carbon dioxide has a “greenhouse” effect – allowing sunlight to reach the earth’s surface but limiting the reradiation of heat to space.

Each ton of wood, coal, petrol or natural gas burned sends several tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Between 1860 and 1960, the burning of fuels added 14 per cent extra carbon dioxide to our air – which had remained stable for centuries.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 321ppm. 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 from the 1950s newspaper articles, and some books about the weather/future etc had been mentioning carbon dioxide build-up. 

The specific context was that Barry Commoner’s book had come out in mid-1966 and been approvingly reviewed in UK papers. This above is a reprint in the Sydney Morning Herald of a review in The Times.

What I think we can learn from this – it’s almost sixty years, isn’t it?

What happened next

A similar review was published in 1967 in the Canberra Times. LINK

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

December 11, 1895 – Arrhenius reads his “Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air” paper to Swedish Academy of Science…

December 11, 1969 – Harold Wilson says “let’s have a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution” – All Our Yesterdays

December 11, 1975 – German scientist gives stark climate warning in Melbourne

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Categories
Australia

December 2, 1994 – “Canberra fiddles as environment burns”

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 2nd, 1994,

When it comes to protecting the environment and meeting Australia’s international greenhouse commitments, the Prime Minister and his Government” lack vision and direction”, claims a leading solar scientist.

Dr David Mills, a physicist at the University of Sydney, said Mr Keating’s Government offered $150 million “to take down an expressway in Sydney as an aesthetic eyesore, but puts a pittance into development of new technologies to alleviate future environmental and balance of payments disasters. Canberra fiddles while the environment burns.”

Dr Mills will present his critique of Federal renewable energy policy in Sydney today at Solar ’94, the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society annual conference.

Dayton, L. 1994. ‘Canberra fiddles as environment burns’. Sydney Morning Herald, 2 December, p.5. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 Australia’s policy elites had been shitting on all things climate since about 1990, upping the speed of this from 1991.

The specific context was that a modest carbon tax was on the table. It would have provided reliable and significant funding for renewables. It was defeated.

What I think we can learn from this – Australia is a lucky country led by tenth-rate assholes.

What happened next – the carbon tax was, of course, defeated. Emissions climbed. People got rich and will in all likelihood escape any punishment for their grievous crimes not just against humanity, but against life itself. 

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 2, 1964 – Mario Savio’s “bodies on the gears” speech at Berkeley..

December 2, 1981 – “Is the world getting warmer?” (YES)

December 2, 1991 – “Ecologically Sustainable Development” bites the dust…

December 2, 2023 – Exxon’s boss vs IEA, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

December 1, 1995 – Air Pollution causing climate chaos, front page story in Sydney Morning Herald

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 1st, 1995,

There is now proof that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect has begun to change the weather, the world’s leading climate scientists have concluded.

The findings of the United Nations-sponsored panel of scientists mean that the world’s present freakish weather patterns can no longer be put down to random natural forces only.

Air pollution, the scientists believe, has begun to transform weather patterns.

After a three-day conference in Madrid, the 200 scientists from more than 100 countries concluded yesterday: “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human influence on global climate.”

1995 Gilchrist, G. 1995. Official: Air Pollution Causing Climate Chaos. Sydney Morning Herald, December. 1 p1. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 Australia is a quarry with a state attached, an extractivist settler-colony with some nice flora and fauna.

The specific context was that Australia’s policy elites had the opportunity to introduce a modest, sensible carbon tax in 1994-5, one that would have funded research and development of wind and solar. Meanwhile, with the international negotiations heating up, lobbyists, fresh from defeating the carbon tax, were upping their support for a state-owned outfit- “ABARE” – and funding its exceptionally dodgy economic modelling.

What I think we can learn from this – we had our chance to do something (we probably never would have done enough, because, well, humans) and we blew it. Now we are at the very beginning of the Fafocene

Also on this day

December 1, 1984 – they’re talking about CCS already… – All Our Yesterdays

December 1, 1995 – bullshit modelling put out by Keating Government – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

November 29, 1995 – Australian power company boss is silent on climate, obvs

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 30th, 1995,

Two days ago, Fred Hilmer, the chairman of Australia’s worst atmospheric polluter, Pacific Power, gave a talk at the University of NSW on the rationale behind the Carr Government’s changes to the electricity industry.

Professor Hilmer gave an impressive, enthusiastic sales job. The crowded room was hot as hell that afternoon and at the end of his 45-minute talk he was sweating profusely.

Even though Pacific Power is our biggest producer of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect and global warming were not mentioned. It was an extraordinary omission.

1995 Gilchrist, G. 1995. Just The Shock Power Industry Needs. Sydney Morning Herald.  December 1, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 Australia’s leaders had by this time had 7 years of having to pretend they gave a damn about “the greenhouse effect”.  But the public pressure was off a bit by now…

The specific context was – a carbon tax proposal had been defeated earlier in the year, and maybe Hilmer couldn’t be bothered to pretend to give a shit?

What I think we can learn from this – they will ignore an issue if they think they can get away with it.

What happened next – John Howard became Prime Minister of Australia in March 1996 and climate policy went from incredibly bad to even worse.

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 29, 1973 – Australian politician warns of climate change

NOVEMBER 29, 1974 – SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER SAYS “RISK OF A CHANGED CLIMATE DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES … [IS] OF UTTER IMPORTANCE”

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

November 29, 1990 and 1994 – Australian denial fools (Fred Singer and Brian Tucker) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

April 17, 2000 – Labor tries to get the green vote…

On this day 25 years ago, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Australian Labor Party was gearing up to use environmental issues to attract voters…  Ha ha ha ha.

Federal Labor is preparing a major push for the green vote at the next election by toughening its stance in key areas including greenhouse gases and mining in national parks.

A draft of its revised policy platform also commits the party to establishing a new independent watchdog, the Commissioner for the Environment.

Labor will also maintain its commitment to examine all legal options to stop the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney and close the Jabiluka uranium mine in Kakadu National Park.

The Opposition’s environment spokesman, Mr Nick Bolkus, and foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Laurie Brereton, are involved in the push for a revised policy, arguing there is an opportunity to exploit disenchantment with the Government. [Kyoto was removed at August ALP Conference in Hobart by Martyn Edwards and Bob McMullan. But they went to the 2001 election with it, so it got put back at some point…]

Robinson, M. and Clennell, A. 2000. Labor To Push Tough Policy For Green Vote. Sydney Morning Herald, April 17, p.7.

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  Australian Prime Minister John Howard was dragging his heels on all environmental issues, and especially renewable energy and other climate issues. 

What we learn. Labor used to pretend harder to care.

What happened next.  Labor lost the 2001 Federal Election. And the 2004 one.  Then – irony of ironies – Kevin Rudd was able to use Howard’s policy vandalism on all matters climate as a stick to beat him with ahead of the 2007 election. Howard became only the second sitting Prime Minister to lose his own seat in the November 2007 election. 

 April 17, 1981 – David Burns writes in New York Times about trouble ahead – All Our Yesterdays

April 17, 1993 – Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

April 17, 2007 – UN Security Council finally discusses the most important security issue of all…