Tag: Toronto Target

Categories
Australia

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts.

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 8th, 1990, there’s another push for the Target to be adopted.

“One was launched by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council on August 8, and supports the Toronto target as an interim goal for planning purposes. This has been accepted by the Governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT.” (Begbe, 1990, 10 Sept)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were coming. Australia’s government was committed to Ecologically Sustainable Development because the green groups had extracted that as a promise for their sort of support in the recent federal election. Various state governments and the ACT, for example, had committed to the Toronto target (and in May 1989 Hawke’s Environment Secretary had floated it in Cabinet, to be shot down by Paul Keating, then Treasurer.). The Toronto Target proposed that industrialised nations should cut their emissions by 20% by the year 2005. The denialists were getting up on their hind legs too. 

And here was the Australian New Zealand Environment Council suggesting that Australia and presumably New Zealand, both say yes to Toronto.

What we learn is that invocations to targets have been with us for a very long time. You get such pleasure of announcing/campaigning for a target, but actually getting the people who say yes to do anything about hitting that target, well, that is somewhat more difficult. 

What happened next, in October 1990 the Hawke government did indeed make a promise for an “Interim Planning Target,” hedged with all sorts with caveats about economic costs and other developed nations taking similar action. So it was a non-promise promise, but it allowed Kelly to go off to the Second World Climate Conference with Australia’s reputation in sort of good standing.

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 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

Categories
Australia

January 28, 1992 – Ros Kelly versus Industry commission on greenhouse plans

Thirty-two years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1992, the Australian Environment Minister was trying to keep her options open…

The Federal Government will press ahead with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005 despite an Industry Commission report that says such reductions would cut Australian production by about 1.5 per cent, or $6 billion a year. The Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, said yesterday that the report, released yesterday, had a “very narrow focus” and failed to capitalise on the opportunities available for industries….

1992 Glascott, K. 1992. Kelly dismisses attack on greenhouse plan. The Australian, January 29, p.4.

And

 The Federal Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, conceded yesterday it would be “very difficult” to achieve global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent – a target endorsed by the Federal Government.

Garran R. and Lawson, M. 1992. Kelly concedes greenhouse difficulties. Australian Financial Review, 29 January, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a fierce battle within the Hawke and then Keating governments about greenhouse. And everybody knows the good guys lost. As part of the quid pro quo for declaring an interim planning target of a 20% reduction by 2005 (so that Kelly could go to the Second World Climate Conference with something in her hand) the then-Treasurer Paul Keating had managed to extract the concession or agreement that the Industry Commission (later renamed the Productivity Commission) would study the costs. Once the costs document was released, it was predictably used as a stick to beat advocates of energy efficiency and sanity over the head. 

What we can learn is that always these battles within governments and allegedly “independent” “scientific”/economic reports are a key weapon. 

What happened next? The Kelly gang lost and we’ve been losing ever since. 

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 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

Categories
Australia

September 21, 1990 – Ministers call for Toronto Target to be federal policy …

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 21, 1990, various state ministers urged Bob Hawke’s Federal Government to do what it had declined to do in May 1989 – agree to decent emissions cuts …

CANBERRA: A meeting of all Australian and New Zealand environment ministers increased pressure on the Federal Cabinet yesterday to commit itself to a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Environment Council (ANZEC) in Alice Springs also urged the Government to push for the target at the Second World Climate Conference, to be held in about six weeks.

Seccombe, 1990. Gas Emission Cut Urged. Sydney Morning Herald, 22 September, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various state governments had made a commitment to the Toronto target but the Australian Federal Government had not. The second World climate conference was due to begin in Geneva shortly (it had been pushed back by four months in order to be a staging post for the incipient international climate negotiations). The Toronto target was one that had been suggested at a conference in June of 1988. Environmentals had wanted a 50% cut by 2015 ceiling. This had been watered down to 20% by 2005.

What I think we can learn from this – there was a time when when politicians were seriously ambitious though perhaps not entirely aware of the actual costs of what they were proposing. Or to be fair they read the reports by people like Demi Greene (see March 1990) and decided it wasn’t too ambitious or too difficult.

What happened next

In October 1990s the Australian Federal Government made a very hedged commitment to Toronto rendering the promise basically meaningless.

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

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

Twenty three years ago, on this day, August 8, 1990, Aussie and New Zealand politicians called for ambitious emissions reductions.

“One was launched by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council on August 8, and supports the Toronto target as an interim goal for planning purposes. This has been accepted by the Governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT.” (Begbe, 1990, 10 Sept)  

Btw, on the same day, in the same country, the ABC’s Lateline had an episode devoted to:  

“The problem of greenhouse gas emissions and Australia’s record on research funding for alternative energy sources.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the federal government was under pressure to announce an emissions reduction target, to both keep the environmentalists happy, and for Australia to have a position at the impending Second World Climate Conference to be held in November in Geneva. And therefore, state environment ministers and New Zealand ministers saying that there should be a “Toronto target” was a good idea.

What I think we can learn from this is that any government is going to be pressured by other governments. And it’s counter pressure from the likes of Brian O’Brien and denialists.

What happened next

On October 11th 1990 the Federal Government agreed to a very hedged climate action target –  with the caveat that it mustn’t hurt the economy.  It then got ignored, having served its purpose of shutting up the greenies. The easter egg was that the Industry Commission got to produce a report that would be used as a bludgeon to say “too costly”…

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

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

On this day, 35 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the pivotal “Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, a meeting of the Australian government’s Federal Cabinet calls for a report on what can be done.

We don’t know more because that particular cabinet submission hasn’t been examined for release

But it did lead to THIS report, in April of the following year

NB Thanks to Senator Rex Patrick for the tweet about this, and to Sally who can’t wander who alerted to me to it.

The context 

The spooks at the Office of National Assessments had produced a report for Cabinet about the Greenhouse Effect, back in 1981, but it’s not clear it was ever discussed or seen by Fraser/Howard/Peackock etc. Through the 1980s, climate scientists got more certain – and more vocal – about the threat. Hawke’s science minister Barry Jones had LONG been aware of the climate problem.  Jones had managed to get funding for a “Commission for the Future” (something New Zealand had had already, and the Swedes had done too in the early 1970s).  

To quote myself from a 2017 Conversation article –

“Meanwhile, the Commission for the Future, founded by the then federal science minister Barry Jones, was seeking a cause célèbre. The Australian Academy of Science organised a dinner of scientists to suggest possible scientific candidates.

“The Commission’s chair, Phillip Adams, recalls that problems such as nuclear war, genetic modification, artificial intelligence, were all proposed. Finally, though:

…the last bloke to talk was right at the far end of the table. Very quiet gentleman… He said, ‘You’re all wrong – it’s the dial in my laboratory, and the laboratories of my colleagues around the world.’ He said, ‘Every day, we see the needle going up, because of what we call the greenhouse effect.‘

The first big project that the Commission for the Future did – in combination with the CSIRO –  was “The Greenhouse Project”, with Australian scientists Graeme Pearman and Barrie Pittock neck deep.  

The Greenhouse Project had launched in September 1987.  There was a big scientific conference a couple of months later.  The Toronto conference (which Pearman attended) was in June, by which time preparations were already well underway for a series of public meetings, linked by satellite, to happen in the capital cities of every state, in November 1988 (Greenhouse 88).


What we can learn

We knew enough to act. The pushback from industry and denialists began in 1989, and was successful in scuppering what might have been a half-decent response.  And here we are.


What happened next

A detailed report was tabled to Cabinet the following April. It makes frankly horrifying reading.  In May 1989 the Federal Environment Minister tried to get the Cabinet to agree to a target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2005.  He was blocked by Paul Keating, Treasurer.

Eventually, just before the Second World Climate Conference, the Australian Cabinet DID accept a version of the “Toronto Target” but with so many caveats as to make it pointless. And Keating, still in Cabinet, extracted an agreement that the Productivity Commission would produce a report.

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 5, 1990 – The Australian Capital Territory adopts the “Toronto Target”

 Thirty two years ago, on this day, June 5, 1990, the ACT government said yes to a 20 per cent cut in emissions by 2005…

“The target was part of the ACT Strategy to respond to the Greenhouse Effect launched by the ACT Chief Minister, Trevor Kaine, on June 5.

Mr Kaine said yesterday that the Commonwealth had been “dragging their feet a little” on the issue. “But it’s important that they’ve now done it and the issue, now that they’ve made the decision and set the targets, is: are they in fact going to put it into effect,” Mr Kaine said. The Federal Government would be watched closely to ensure that it did not attempt to withdraw from the decision, he said.”

Lamberton, 1990,13 October Canberra Times

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1988, the “Toronto target” had been proposed at a conference called “The Changing Climate.” It was for a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2005. The ACT has no industry, just lots of hot air from federal politicians. 

What I think we can learn from this

So a critic could say that it’s relatively straightforward to make cuts, if you don’t have coal-fired power plants with all factories within your borders, because you simply do efficiency gains, insulation, etc. And that’s true. But what else is a service economy supposed to do? Say “Oh, nothing to do with us.” And then you can call them hypocrites if they don’t do anything. So the ACT government pursued this. I think they were successful.

The fact that various state governments and territory governments said yes to the Toronto target, put additional pressure on the federal government, which is another reason why you would do one of these things. The problem was not the targets. The problem is whether you’re going to take action to make it happen.

What happened next

ACT is aiming for net zero by 2045

https://yoursayconversations.act.gov.au/zero-emissions

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

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

On this day, September 5 1990, the new-ish Australian Environment Minister, Ros Kelly, was trying to finish the work that a male colleague had started with endless self-promotion but not a lot of guile (this is a pattern that will recur, 20 years later). Here are two newspaper accounts

Targets to reduce greenhouse gases would strengthen the Australian economy, not cripple it, according to the Minister for the Environment, Ms Kelly.

Speaking to a Metal Trades Industry Association seminar, Ms Kelly made a preliminary sortie in the battle she will fight with her Cabinet colleagues next Monday to try to persuade them to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Ms Kelly said a report for her department by Deni Greene Consulting Services showed that a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2005 is not only possible, it is pretty easy to obtain”.

Industry groups have been lobbying the Government hard in recent days against setting a target to reduce emissions, which they argue could dramatically increase costs.

Garran, R. 1990. Kelly sees big savings in cutting greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 6 September, p. 5.

and

“In a speech yesterday (5th), Mrs Kelly called again for immediate action. She stressed the IPCC findings and said that “the sensible course of action is to do what we can, as soon as we can”.

A 20 per cent cut had been proved “not only possible (but) easy to obtain,” she said. “

Seccombe, M. 1990. Polluters put on the back-burner. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 September, p.1

On this day the PPM was 351.38. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

There was a time when – if you were optimistic (and perhaps naive?) you could imagine Federal politicians in Australia actually taking action that would have added up to a semi-adequate response to climate change. It was a brief time, one easily romanticised, but it did exist.

What happened next?

None of this came to pass. The fight back from the fossil lobby was supremely effective. Companies in Australia dug up and burnt/sold insane (I mean that literally) quantities of fossil fuels, with active and very enthusiastic support of the political classes and the bureaucrats. And here we are.

Categories
United Kingdom

March 13, 1989  – UK Energy Department shits all over everyone’s future by dissing Toronto Target

On this day in 1989,  Baroness Hooper (because the UK has unelected members of parliament making consequential decisions) appeared before the UK Energy Select Committee, which was investigating the “greenhouse effect” as we then all called it.

According to the Financial Times (14/3/1989, page 15) she told the MPs that the Government had no plans to introduce a special tax on fossil fuels such as coal.

The final paragraph of the article is as follows –

[Hooper] said the Government was “extremely sceptical” of the call from a meeting of scientists in Toronto last year for a reduction of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent by the year 2005. It was neither feasible nor necessary at this stage, she said.

Hunt, J. (1989) Science support group to be formed at Met Office. Financial Times, 14 March, p.15.

Why this matters. 

We should remember that this was potentially fixable.  It’s almost certainly not now.  But then, it mighta been…. And here we are.

What happened next?

The following month Margaret Thatcher held a full-day cabinet meeting about climate mitigation options. Will blog about that too – bet you cannot wait, can you?

But thanks to the “dash for gas” – buying gas in to accelerate the demise of the hated coal mine(r)s, emissions went down a bit, and the UK Government stopped pretending to give a shit about carbon emissions for another decade.  What a species we are.

Categories
Australia Energy Ignored Warnings

March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

On this day in 1990, a report was released showing that Australia could reduce its carbon dioxide emissions markedly and save a lot of money through energy efficiency measures. The report was written for the Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, by Deni Greene, an American consultant who had moved to Australia. 

The broader context was that Australia was discussing what emissions reductions it would commit to. Prominent among these was the so-called “Toronto target” from a June 1988 Conference, which proposed that industrialised nations go for a 20% cut on a 1988 baseline by the year 2005. This was vigorously resisted of course, by industry. Greene’s report was part of a back-and-forth set of reports trying to create/close down support for the target.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that energy efficiency has been talked about and not done for decades. If you are interested in Australian energy efficiency, you cannot go past the tireless and pain-staking work of Alan Pears. 

What happened next?

In October of that year, just ahead of the Second World Climate Climate conference, the Federal Government did commit to the Toronto Target, but with caveats so big that they rendered the whole thing pointless. Other targets have met similar fates. And here we are.