A reminder of just how long the fossil fuel industry has been lying about climate change and why this is so important in 2022......

 

In recent years there have been a number of media and legal journals reporting on individuals, communities and classes of people suing multinational mining, oil, gas and coal corporations with regard to the environmental and climate change consequences of their business policies and actions.

One of the telling points being made before the courts is 'what did the company know and when did it know it'.

Although the facts set out below refer to the fossil fuel industry, it is time rural, regional and outer metropolitan communities on the Australian East Coast began a search in the records of federal, state, local governments and their agencies/agents, for all documents, minutes, memos, emails, as well as Hansard and media articles or comments, which reveal 'what governments knew and when they knew it'. 

It's well past time that the level of private litigation increases — because these three tiers of government will not stop: a) giving permission for urban development on floodplains or geologically unstable land; b) all but ignoring high greenhouse gas emissions by industry & business; c) refusing to act on the high rate of land clearance & destructive logging of native forest which exacerbates land mass temperature rise or d) failing to seriously address the climate risk associated with the millions of vulnerable residential dwellings which will not be able to withstand the erratic rolling unnatural disasters anticipated to hit Australia within the next 8-28 years; unless the courts begin to hand down judgments that cumulatively cost them billions in any election cycle and through budgetary pain force government to act.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 1959 — years before some reading this post were born —

the American Petroleum Institute (API) along with the great and good of the oil industry celebrated 100 years of drilling for oil in the USA.

At that centennial celebration nuclear weapons physicist Edward Teller addressed the around 300-strong audience.

According to a later account of this address, in part he stated:

Ladies and gentlemen, I am to talk to you about energy in the future. I will start by telling you why I believe that the energy resources of the past must be supplemented. First of all, these energy resources will run short as we use more and more of the fossil fuels. But I would [...] like to mention another reason why we probably have to look for additional fuel supplies. And this, strangely, is the question of contaminating the atmosphere. [....] Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon dioxide. [....] The carbon dioxide is invisible, it is transparent, you can’t smell it, it is not dangerous to health, so why should one worry about it?

Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [....] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe…..

At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [roughly 360 parts per million], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a serious additional impediment for the radiation leaving the earth. Our planet will get a little warmer. It is hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only one or 5. [my yellow highlighting]

But when the temperature does rise by a few degrees over the whole globe, there is a possibility that the icecaps will start melting and the level of the oceans will begin to rise. Well, I don’t know whether they will cover the Empire State Building or not, but anyone can calculate it by looking at the map and noting that the icecaps over Greenland and over Antarctica are perhaps five thousand feet thick.

Robert Galbraith Dunlop, Chairman of Sun Oil Co and a director on the API board at the time, was present when Teller informed the oil industry it was contaminating the atmosphere.

In 1965 at an annual API conference its president Frank Ikard gave an address titled “Meeting the Challenges of 1966” which informed his audience of the contents of a recent published report submitted to President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee titled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment”.

Ikard stated: “One of the most important predictions of the report is that carbon dioxide is being added to the Earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at such a rate that by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts. The report further states, and I quote: “...the pollution from internal combustion engines is so serious, and is growing so fast, that an alternative nonpolluting means of powering automobiles, buses and trucks is likely to become a national necessity.” [my yellow highlighting]

Then again in 1968 an unpublished paper commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute was delivered in final form to API. Again, at this time Robert Dunlop of Sun Oil was still a current director & by now also a former Chair of the American Petroleum Institute (1965 to 1967).

Here are the details of that paper…..

“Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants”, Final Report, Robinson, E. “Elmer” (Author) & Robbins, R. C. “Bob” (Contributor - American Petroleum Institute, Stanford Research Institute). First published in 1968 by Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Calif. USA, with supplementary information supplied in1969 and 1971, 123 pages with diagram, table & references at:

http://chr.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Exhibit-3H-Sources-Abundance-and-Fate-of-Gaseous-Atmospheric-Pollutants.pdf

Excerpts:

It seems ironic that in our view of air pollution technology we take such a serious concern with small-scale events such as the photochemical reactions of trace concentrations of hydrocarbons, the effect on vegetation of a fraction of a part per million of S0₂, when the abundant pollutants which we generally ignore because they have little local effect, CO₂ and submicron particles, may be the cause of serious world-wide environmental changes….. [my yellow highlighting]

Possible Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

We are concerned with the possible changes in atmospheric CO₂ content because CO₂ plays a significant role in establishing the thermal balance of the earth. This occurs because CO₂ is a strong absorber and back radiator in the infrared portion of the spectrum, especially between 12 and 18. As such CO₂ prevents the loss of considerable heat energy from the earth and radiates it back to the lower atmosphere, the so-called “greenhouse effect. Thus the major changes which are speculated about as possibly resulting from a change in atmospheric CO₂ are related to a change in the earth's temperature….

If the earth's temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur, including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis. The first two items are of course related since the increase in sea level would be mainly due to the added water from the ice cap. [my yellow highlighting]

Estimates of the possible rate at which the Antarctic ice cap might melt have been made….

Changes in ocean temperature would change the distribution of fish and cause a retreat in the polar sea ice. This has happened in recent time on a very limited scale….

Summary of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

In summary, Revelle makes the point that man is now engaged in a vast geophysical experiment with his environment, the earth. Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climatic changes…..

[my yellow highlighting]

The following year saw this report sent to API, “Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants: Project PR-6755, Supplemental Report” (1969) at:

http://chr.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Exhibit-3I-Sources-Abundance-and-Fate-of-Gaseous-Atmospheric-Pollutants-Supplement.pdf

Yale Environment 360, 30 November 2022:

The Center for International Environmental Law, an advocacy group Muffett now runs, published excerpts in 2016. Now, the paper — along with a follow-up that Robinson and Robbins produced in 1969 — is playing a key role in a wave of lawsuits seeking to hold oil companies accountable for climate change.

Minnesota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Baltimore, and Honolulu are among about two dozen U.S. states and localities suing the industry. Some of the cases seek compensation for the damage wrought by climate-driven disasters like floods, fires, and heat waves, plus the cost of preparing for future impacts. Others allege violations of state or local laws prohibiting fraud and other deceitful business practices, or requiring companies to warn consumers of a product’s potential dangers. The defendants, which vary from case to case, include the American Petroleum Institute as well as major companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips.

The suits’ common thread is the charge that the industry has long understood emissions from oil and gas combustion would drive warming — and create a host of major global risks — but carried out a decades-long misinformation campaign to confuse the public and prevent a shift to cleaner fuels. Most cite Robinson and Robbins’ work. The pair’s reports have been proffered internationally too, most notably in a Dutch case in which a court last year ordered Shell to slash its carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030; the company is appealing. European courts have been more favorable for cases seeking to force such reductions or push governments to strengthen climate policies, while U.S. suits generally aim at extracting financial penalties or compensation from companies….. [my yellow highlighting]

Read the full article here.

Further reading

https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Smoke-Fumes-FINAL.pdf

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/162144/Presentation%20Geoffrey%20Supran.pdf

“Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications”, Geoffrey Supran, PhD, History of Science, Harvard University

A reminder of just how long the global political class have been fully aware of the "Possibility of Catastrophic Climate Change"

 

Memorandum to United States of America President James "Jimmy" Carter, dated 7 July 1977

Description:

FROM: US OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY.

SUBJECT: Release of Fossil co2 and the Possibility of a Catastrophic Climate Change 

Memorandum to United States... by clarencegirl

 

How the US National Academy of Sciences saw author of this memo, Frank Press:

Frank Press [4 December 1924 – 29 January 2020] served as the 19th president of the National Academy of Sciences from July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1993. As NAS president, Press also led a reorganization of the Academy’s operating arm, the National Research Council. He believed that the landmark 1986 report, Confronting AIDS — which warned that the toll of the AIDS epidemic would become far worse and urged a massive national response — was the most significant report issued while he was president. In fact, he told the Research Council’s governing body that the report, “may well rank among our most important contributions to the public welfare.” A report examining the cause of the 1986 space shuttle Challenger explosion was another key report issued during his tenure.

From 1977 to 1981, Press was national science adviser to President Jimmy Carter and the second director of the recently formed White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In this role, Press was key in establishing a science and technology exchange agreement between the U.S. and China, which enabled thousands of Chinese students to study in the U.S. — many of whom went on to become U.S. citizens. He also focused on “increasing government commitment to basic research, evaluating the impact of federal regulations on the economy, and providing analyses of a national energy policy,” according to documents at the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum. In addition, Press was on the presidential science advisory committees during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and served on the National Science Board under President Richard Nixon.

Press was among the first generation of geophysicists who benefited from and contributed to revolutionary developments associated with the evolution of the field of plate tectonics, and he quickly became a leader in this area of research. He received the National Medal of Science in 1994 “for his contributions to the understanding of the deepest interior of the earth and the mitigation of natural disasters.” He was the recipient of many other awards and honors, including the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Japan Prize, and the Vannevar Bush Award.

Prior to his positions in Washington, D.C., Press was professor of geophysics and chair of the department of earth and planetary sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1965 to 1977. He had also held academic appointments at Columbia University and the California Institute of Technology, and was the chair of the U.S. delegation to the 1960 Nuclear Test Ban Conference in Geneva. Press received his undergraduate degree in physics from the City College of New York in 1944 in his Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia University in 1946.

Upon completing his service as NAS president at age 69, Press accepted a four-year appointment as the Cecil and Ida Green Research fellow at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, and remained active as an adviser to several organizations — both public and private — for many years.

NSW Liberal Premier Dominic Perrottet & Nationals Deputy Premier Paul Toole continue the Coalition's obsession with that fossil fuel without any form of social licence, Coal Seam Gas

 

Northern Daily Leader, 21 May 2022:

Gas companies will be permitted to explore for the mineral on 90,000 hectares of farmland surrounding the village of Bellata, after the state government resurrected the last "zombie" PEL in the North West on Friday.

Opponents of gas expansion accused the government of trying to bury a decision to bring back PEL 427 from the dead, in the hours before the federal election.

It is the last of 12 decades-old petroleum exploration licences (PELs), covering 55,000 square kilometres of farmland, which had long expired but, like zombies, could be reanimated at any time. All but three other PELS have been destroyed for good in recent weeks…..

The Bellata PEL has been shrunk down to just 90,000 hectares, covering an area near Moree. It includes land in the Northern Tablelands electorate of Adam Marshall and the Barwon electorate of Roy Butler, both of whom oppose gas development in their electorates.

A spokesperson for the Department of Regional NSW said that the PEL "has been renewed in line with the NSW Government's Future of Gas Statement, which was released last year, reducing the total area covered by the PELs in NSW by 77 per-cent."

"The PEL remained in place while it was under assessment by the Department. The renewed area is significantly smaller than it was previously," he said.

"All PELs that were under assessment have now been resolved, with parts of them reduced, others renewed, and several refused."

Lock the Gate Alliance National Coordinator Georgina Woods said the timing of the renewal showed disdain for farmers and a desperate attempt to avoid scrutiny.

"It's shocking to see the Perrottet Government continuing to permit coal seam gas exploration on some of the state's best farmland," she said.

"In less than a month, the Perrottet Government has put more than one million hectares of NSW land and the groundwater beneath it at the mercy of the polluting coal seam gas industry.

"Coal seam gas is incompatible with a thriving agriculture industry and resilient rural communities.

"The Perrottet Government has given gas companies the green light to pockmark farmland with gas wells and further fuel dangerous climate change, which is in turn making it harder for farmers to grow food and fibre.

"As recent community meetings have shown, locals will not passively accept the renewal of these licences. The Perrottet Government now has one hell of a fight on its hands."

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers member for Barwon Roy Butler said the government risked serious backlash from its strongest supporters, who had what he said was "white hot" anger about the issue.

"The strange thing for me is that you've got groups like NSW Farmers and CWA who strongly oppose this, they strongly oppose Narrabri, they oppose these zombie PELs. Those groups are bread and butter for the Nats," he said.

"Yet they just stick their middle finger up at them essentially and say we'll we're going to go do it anyway. You sort of sit there and think what the hell's going on? Why would you do that to your base?"

He said almost no landholder near Narrabri was in favour of a plan to turn the region into a coal-seam-gas development zone, and the industry continued to pose major risks to groundwater……

In April the government resurrected PELs near Narrabri, Boggabri, Quirindi and Gunnedah.

It approved the Santos-owned Narrabri Gas Project in 2020.

Bellarta NSW 

IMAGE: Domain.com.au

According to Visit NSW website:

Bellata lies 48 kilometres North of Narrabri and 54 kilometres South of Moree on the Newell Highway in North West New South Wales. A rich agricultural region, it is also known for its minerals such as petrified and opalised wood and agate.

The Bellata area is responsible for the production of some of the best Australian Prime Hard wheat in Australia and has large grain storage complex and silos. The countryside has beautiful rich soils and undulating land.

Bellata has a primary school, a nine hole golf course with sand greens and free camping is also available at the Bellata Golf Club, 24 hour BP Roadhouse and the Bellata Memorial Hall.

Australia's Morrison Government appears to be living proof of that old adage, birds of a feather do flock together

IMAGE: Woodcut illustration of Vultures — Vector by ronjoe

Anyone who has been delving into Scott Morrison & Angus Taylor’s 98 page AUSTRALIA’S LONG-TERM EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN: Modelling and Analysis (Dept. of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources: DISER) document and, attempting to pin down where within its content examples of genuine modelling relying on science, fact-based assumptions and realistic projections, might have seen the name McKinsey & Company crop up on no less than 76 occasions.

That name rang a bell. Here is a brief background…….

The New York Times, 28 October 2021, p.6:

….a revolt has been brewing inside the world's most influential consulting firm, McKinsey & Company, over its support of the planet's biggest polluters.

More than 1,100 employees and counting have signed an open letter to the firm's top partners, urging them to disclose how much carbon their clients spew into the atmosphere. "The climate crisis is the defining issue of our generation," wrote the letter's authors, nearly a dozen McKinsey consultants. "Our positive impact in other realms will mean nothing if we do not act as our clients alter the earth irrevocably."

Several of the authors have resigned since the letter, which has never before been reported, came out last spring -- with one sending out a widely shared email that cited McKinsey's continued work with fossil fuel companies as a primary reason for his departure…..[my yellow highlighting]

The Hill, 27 October 2021:

... Since then, some of the letter's authors, who are consultants at McKinsey, have resigned from the company which is considered the world's most influential consulting firm, the Times reported.

Lawsuits, internal documents and interviews with four ex-McKinsey employees showed that McKinsey has advised at least 43 of the world's top 100 polluters in the past 50 years, per the Times.

The investigation by the Times found that those clients alone, excluding some of McKinsey's other clients who also contribute to pollution, accounted for over one-third of global carbon emissions in 2018.

At least one consultant who resigned specifically cited McKinsey's work with fossil fuel companies as his main reason for leaving. The Environmental Protection Agency has noted that "burning fossil fuels changes the climate more than any other human activity."

“Walking away from these sectors might appease absolutist critics,” D.J. Carella, a spokesman for McKinsey, said to the Times, adding that it "would do nothing to solve the climate challenge."…. [my yellow highlighting]

The New York Times, 6 November 2021:

A House committee has requested documents related to the firm's advice to drug makers and potential conflicts of interest with the F.D.A.

In a new assault on the global consulting giant McKinsey & Company, Congress on Friday started an investigation into the firm's role in the opioid crisis, sending a letter demanding records related to its "business practices, conflicts of interest and management standards."

The 12-page letter, which was sent by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, asked for names of McKinsey clients in the health care industry as well as documents connected to its work with opioid manufacturers, distributors and retailers. The committee is also looking at how McKinsey's consulting for drugmakers may conflict with work it has done for the Food and Drug Administration.

By advising opioid makers and "the federal agency regulating their conduct," McKinsey "may have had a significant negative impact on Americans' health," the committee said.

The letter was signed by the committee's chairwoman, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, who requested that McKinsey produce the documents by Nov. 19. McKinsey has a policy of not identifying its clients or the advice it gives.

A spokesman for the firm on Friday said McKinsey had "received the committee's letter and will engage directly with the committee regarding their requests."

This year, McKinsey agreed to pay all 50 states more than $600 million to settle investigations into how it had helped "turbocharge" opioid sales, focusing mostly on its work with Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. McKinsey did not admit any wrongdoing.

The request on Friday follows a narrower one on Aug. 23, from a bipartisan group of six U.S. senators seeking records from the F.D.A. on its work with McKinsey at the same time that it was regulating opioid manufacturers, calling that relationship "a potential conflict of interest." The senators asked for more information about the firm's work with the F.D.A. division that approved certain classes of drugs, including prescription opioids.

OxyContin and similar painkillers can be addictive and prone to abuse. From 1999 to 2019, nearly 500,000 people in the United States died of opioid overdoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…..  [my yellow highlighting]

Reuters, 18 August 2021:

… McKinsey earlier this year reached agreements with state attorneys general to pay $641 million to resolve claims it helped drug manufacturers, including OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, to design marketing plans and boost sales of painkillers.

Lawsuits by cities, counties and others followed, and Breyer now oversees at least 51 cases…. [my yellow highlighting]

The New York Times, 3 December 2019 - updated 24 February 2021:

Just days after he took office in 2017, President Trump set out to make good on his campaign pledge to halt illegal immigration. In a pair of executive orders, he ordered “all legally available resources” to be shifted to border detention facilities, and called for hiring 10,000 new immigration officers.

The logistical challenges were daunting, but as luck would have it, Immigration and Customs Enforcement already had a partner on its payroll: McKinsey & Company, an international consulting firm brought on under the Obama administration to help engineer an “organizational transformation” in the ICE division charged with deporting migrants who are in the United States unlawfully.

ICE quickly redirected McKinsey toward helping the agency figure out how to execute the White House’s clampdown on illegal immigration.

But the money-saving recommendations the consultants came up with made some career ICE workers uncomfortable. They proposed cuts in spending on food for migrants, as well as on medical care and supervision of detainees, according to interviews with people who worked on the project for both ICE and McKinsey and 1,500 pages of documents obtained from the agency after ProPublica filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act…. [my yellow highlighting]

The New York Times, 9 January 2019:

A judge in Virginia reopened a more than two-year-old case on Wednesday to consider accusations that the powerful consultancy McKinsey & Company had defrauded his court while advising a bankrupt coal company…..

McKinsey already faces similar claims of misconduct from Mr. Alix in the bankruptcy of another energy company, Westmoreland Coal, in Texas…. [my yellow highlighting]

Financial Times, 20 February 2019:

McKinsey has agreed to a $15m settlement with the US Department of Justice to resolve claims that the influential consulting firm failed to properly disclose conflicts of interest in bankruptcy cases over two decades.

The settlement on Tuesday is among the largest made by a bankruptcy professional accused of failing to comply with disclosure rules, according to the justice department, and adds to the mounting scrutiny of the professional services giant.... [my yellow highlighting]

Consulting.us, 4 December 2020:

The USTP [US Trustee Program] started the mediation with McKinsey in 2019 after noting that the consulting firm withheld “critical details” about connections to parties with a potential economic interest in the $1.4 billion Westmoreland bankruptcy case.

Westmoreland Coal emerged from Chapter 11 in June 2019. McKinsey, however, will forgo its fees for the advisory work performed, which the watchdog estimates at millions of dollars…. [my yellow highlighting]

Cartoons of the Week

 

Cathy Wilcox

David Pope

David Rowe

On 22 April 2021 two Australian fossil fools came out to frolic under the public gaze - Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the virtual Leaders Summit and Saudi Arabian Oil Company director Andrew Liveris on the ABC program Q&A

Two fossil fools currently roaming wild in Australia
Saudi Arabian Oil Company director Andrew Liveris (left) and Prime Minister Scott Morrison (right)
IMAGE: Crikey, 16 September 2020

In March 2020 Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison created the National COVID-19 Co-ordination Commission Advisory Board with the aim of building a fossil fuel led economic recovery.

One Andrew N. Liveris - former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Dow Chemical Company, former director of DowDuPont, current director of Saudi Arabian Oil Company, self-styled advisor to Australian & US governments and an apparent chum of Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest of Cashless Welfare Card fame and Scott Morrison - became a Special Adviser to the Commission from April 2020 to September 2020 and head of the Commission's Manufacturing Taskforce.

Perhaps there is a hint in the following exchange as to why he is no longer mentioned in connection with the National COVID-19 Co-ordination Commission.

The man has a very large ego and a rather abrasive personality. He apparently also has a problem with basic maths.

ABC Q&A program, 22 April 2021 transcript, excerpts:

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Andrew Liveris, you’ve promoted this gas-led recovery. Many take the view that you’re committing us to fossil fuels for much longer than we need to.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

So, let me...

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Explain it. Justify it.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

...let me teach you a new term – fossil feedstock. OK? Let me...

NARELDA JACOBS:

Let me teach you a term.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Yeah, please.

NARELDA JACOBS:

If you believe there’s a future in fossil fuels...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Yeah.

NARELDA JACOBS:

...then you are a fossil...fool.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Narelda...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Thank you. I take it as a...I take it as a badge of honour that you would call me that. Fossil feedstock is all of your modern life. You want to live a modern life, you need a fossil feedstock. You can’t get carbon any other way. If you want a chemistry lesson, I’ll help you out the back.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Oh...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

What you’ve got to do...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

Man...

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Andrew. Andrew.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

...you’re just...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Listen.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

You’re so patronising. Like, just...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

But...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

Seriously.

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Let’s just try and keep it respectful amongst all of us...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

And you’re not?

HAMISH MACDONALD:

...and stick to the policy...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

Well, I’m not the one shaking my finger at people, mate.

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Folks, let’s just keep to the policy, if we can.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Yeah. Well, you’re yelling.

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Uh, why is it that Australia...why is it that Australia needs a gas pipeline, for example, across the Nullarbor to bring it to the east coast from the west? Can you just justify this promotion of a gas-led recovery?

ANDREW LIVERIS:

There’s 850,000 Australians employed by industries that use gas as a feedstock. 850,000. At the current pricing levels, they’re paid Japanese spot price. Spot price. So, Japan gets cheaper gas than we do for our industry. Those industries you need for everyday life. And I’ll take the commentary that I’m patronising and I’m yelling, ‘cause I’m passionate about this, ‘cause there’s a gap in our knowledge base.

I’ll buy Malcolm’s discussion on gas as a firming fuel anytime. I totally agree with that. Gas as a segue to hydrogen, I also agree with that. That’s the fuel part. The feedstock part is not well understood, and it absolutely, totally makes me... Try to understand, why is it not understood in this wonderful country of ours? These jobs need to be not only protected, but we need to grow them. So, we... This sequester of carbon…

HAMISH MACDONALD:

So, how long do we need gas for as a transition fuel, then?

ANDREW LIVERIS:

So, again, you use the word ‘fuel’, OK, and I’m trying to actually...

HAMISH MACDONALD:

Yeah, I understand the point you’re making about feedstock, but...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

You do?

HAMISH MACDONALD:

...ultimately, this is a question that’s been put to you about a commitment to fossil fuels longer-term.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

So, remember...

HAMISH MACDONALD:

So, I’m just trying to understand what you...what period you see us using gas as a transition for.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

The National COVID Commission work we did was for manufacturing, OK? It wasn’t for electricity. It wasn’t for doing the power balance, or any of that. The work we did was totally based on using the carbon for manufacturing. That’s the work we did. OK? I have no skin in the game to keeping natural gas for power, for anything other than a transition. There’s no reason to do that. Because it is an emitter. It’s not as big an emitter as coal, but it certainly is an emitter. So you’ve got to use it as a transition. That’s it. Until batteries become affordable and scalable, until we can actually get more Snowy Hydros. And why you need a gas pipeline is as much to provide that transition for that, but more for industry, which is why I’m trying to bring it back to the feedstock conversation.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Andrew, where are the 850,000 jobs that use gas as feedstock? 

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Fertilisers, plastics, chemicals, explosives… [my yellow highlighting]

NOTE: An estimated 16,511 persons are employed in the four industries cited by Mr. Liveris. See note below.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

And there are 850,000 people working in Australia making plastics?

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Yes, yes.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Is that right?

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Not plastics – all those industries I just said.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

I don’t think that’s true.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG:

No. Yeah.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

That is true. I can send you the data.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

I think you’ve exaggerated. I honestly think you’re way out of...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Well...

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

...you’re way off the chart.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

Malcolm, I use the same people you used for research, as when you were prime minister. So, go talk to the people in Canberra.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

OK. Well...

ANDREW LIVERIS:

I mean, they’re the same...

MALCOLM TURNBULL

I don’t mind you mansplaining me. That’s alright. (CHUCKLES)

ANDREW LIVERIS:

I’m not. I’m not, Malcolm.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

You are, but it’s alright. It’s OK. It’s OK.

ANDREW LIVERIS:

That’s a pretty cheap blow.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

It’s OK. It’s OK. It’s alright.

NOTES:

1.Fertiliser Manufacturing in Australia in 2021 employed 3,557 persons.

2.Plastics Manufacturing & Plastic Bottle Manufacturing in Australia in 2020 & 2021 employed a combined total of 8,154 persons.

3.Explosives Manufacturing in Australia in 2020 & 2021 employed 3,527 persons.

4.Basic Organic Chemical* Manufacturing in Australia in 2020 employed 1,273 persons. *The modern term “basic organic chemical” now refers to chemicals derived from both organic and carbon sources such as petroleum & natural gas.

5.Industrial Gas Manufacturing in Australia in 2021 employed 2,005 persons.