Source — AITW Ep063 — Climate Change and Australia, with Howard Bamsey¶

Episode Metadata¶

Field	Value
Episode number	63
Title	Climate change and Australia, with Howard Bamsey
Publication date	2020-12-16
Recording date	Tuesday, 1 December 2020
Guests	Howard Bamsey — former Ambassador for the Environment; Ambassador to UN Geneva; co-director, Global Green Growth Institute; chair, Climate Change
Allan present	Yes — as primary host/interviewer
Format	Guest interview; no reading segment

Summary¶

Guest interview with Howard Bamsey on climate change and Australia's international climate policy record. Allan hosts throughout; Darren participates but cedes most of the questioning to Allan. Bamsey and Allan have a long personal relationship — they knew each other in the Canberra policy world by the 1990s and during Allan's Lowy Institute period.

The conversation covers: the scale and urgency of the climate challenge (Bamsey pessimistic on trajectory, cautiously optimistic on direction); Australia's historically significant and largely unacknowledged positive contribution to international climate architecture (particularly the Nationally Determined Contributions concept, which Bamsey argues was an Australian idea under the Kyoto/Paris transition); Australia's current "outlier" status on carbon neutrality commitments; the Pacific Island states' legitimate grievances; the incoming Biden/Kerry climate ambitions and the credibility question after Trump; and COP26 Glasgow.

Biographical significance is concentrated in two moments: (1) Allan's introductory remarks to Bamsey — he reveals a personal memory of a "polite Canberra dinner party late last century" at which Bamsey's authority settled the climate science question for Allan permanently; (2) Bamsey independently recalls a conversation with Allan "when Allan was at Lowy" about the Chicago Council global survey on climate attitudes — third-party corroboration of the Lowy Institute period. Allan also compares Biden's climate language ("if we don't get this right, nothing else matters") to Kevin Rudd's, deploying his characteristic "channeling" frame for rhetorical genealogy.

Key Quotations¶

Allan settles climate science "for me" — the dinner party anecdote¶

"because I can remember attending one of those polite Canberra dinner parties with you late last century, I think, when one of the guests around the table made a remark suggesting that the debate about Climate Change was still an open question. And, you know, I can't stand this sort of thing anymore. The science is in, and I'm not prepared to waste time on people who haven't paid it the attention that it needed. So I remember thinking to myself then, Okay, well, that's one big issue sorted out for me. So thank you."

— [00:00:44.260 --> 00:02:39.140]

The anecdote is embedded in Allan's introduction of Bamsey — which is characteristic: he works autobiographical material into the act of introducing or praising someone else. The phrase "those polite Canberra dinner parties" with its definite article and mild irony is precise social observation — Canberra policy dinners where a guest feels entitled to perform scepticism about settled science. "I can't stand this sort of thing anymore" is rare directness for Allan, who is usually careful to avoid the language of personal exasperation. The moment at that dinner — not Bamsey arguing against the sceptic, but the effect of his presence and authority — settled it for Allan: "that's one big issue sorted out for me." The timing, "late last century," places this in the 1990s. By the episode's recording date (December 2020), this memory is at least two decades old.

Bamsey corroborates Allan's Lowy period — and Allan corrects the name¶

Howard Bamsey: "I remember when Allan was at Lowy, we were talking about the results of one of those global surveys that I think University of Chicago coordinates."

Allan Gyngell: "Chicago Council on Climate Relations."

— [00:36:42.260 --> 00:37:10.880]

Bamsey's recollection is unprompted and incidental — he is making a broader point about Australian public opinion on climate change and recalls a specific conversation with Allan as illustration. His dating ("when Allan was at Lowy") corroborates Allan's Lowy Institute period as an independently remembered fact by a peer. Bamsey recalls that Allan told him 65% of Australians thought climate was the most important domestic and international issue just before the Rudd government was elected (2007) — a figure that subsequently collapsed to ~5%. The substantive point (Australian public opinion on climate has fluctuated dramatically) is Bamsey's; the biographical significance is the corroboration.

Note on the organisation name: Allan says "Chicago Council on Climate Relations," but this appears to be a slip or a transcription error. The actual organisation is the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (formerly the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations), which has long run a biennial survey of American public opinion on global issues and occasionally commissioned comparative international surveys. The Lowy Poll was partly inspired by the Chicago Council model. Either Allan misspoke, or the medium-model transcript has introduced an error here.

"Biden... is a sort of channeling of Kevin Rudd"¶

"Biden has written about Climate Change. If we don't get this right, nothing else matters, which is a sort of channeling of Kevin Rudd. So he's set the bar high..."

— [00:39:52.680 --> 00:40:31.880]

Allan's deployment of "channeling" to link two political figures rhetorically is a recurring verbal habit — see Ep063 for what may be a first instance in the climate domain. Rudd's signature formulation was that climate change was "the great moral challenge of our generation" (from his November 2007 climate change statement and the Garnaut Review framing). Biden's "if we don't get this right, nothing else matters" is functionally equivalent — an existential-stakes framing that elevates climate above economic or strategic trade-offs. Allan does not endorse the claim; he uses "channeling" analytically, noting Biden has "set the bar high" and immediately asks what this means for the negotiating dynamics. The Rudd comparison also implies that Allan knows the rhetorical precedent well enough to spot the echo — consistent with his years in or adjacent to the Keating and later Labor policy worlds.

Allan's diagnostic question on Australia's domestic vs international failure¶

"Is the underlying reason for this, the fact that we've failed to develop our own national energy policy internally, rather than the positions we're taking internationally? I mean, if we sorted ourselves out domestically, presumably everything else would flow and we've been very—"

— [00:22:09.920 --> 00:22:39.920]

A question, not a statement — but characteristic of Allan's analytical style as host: the question itself contains the diagnosis. Rather than treating Australia's climate outlier status as a matter of international positioning (diplomatic will, leadership, coalition membership), Allan immediately identifies the causal mechanism as domestic: the failure to develop a national energy policy. This is structurally the same move he makes in other domains — tracing apparently foreign policy problems to their domestic political roots. Bamsey's answer essentially agrees: Australia's business community, state governments, and civil society have arrived at a consensus; the resistance is in "the nether regions of this government." Allan's framing sharpens Bamsey's diagnosis rather than challenging it.

Biographical Fragments¶

"A polite Canberra dinner party late last century" — climate science settled by Bamsey's authority¶

Evidence: Ep063 [00:00:44.260 --> 00:02:39.140]. Directly stated in Allan's introduction of Howard Bamsey. Confidence: High.

Allan recalls attending a dinner party in Canberra — "late last century," so the 1990s — at which Howard Bamsey was present. Another guest suggested the debate about climate change was "still an open question." The effect of the evening — through Bamsey's presence, authority, or direct intervention (Allan does not specify) — settled the climate science question permanently for Allan: "that's one big issue sorted out for me." He has not since been "prepared to waste time on people who haven't paid it the attention that it needed."

This is a rare account of how a major epistemic question was resolved for Allan — not through reading or analysis, but through a single social occasion. The phrase "one big issue sorted out for me" is characteristic shorthand for a permanent position: once he has made an assessment, he does not revisit it absent new evidence. The relationship with Bamsey (a former DFAT colleague in climate negotiation, now a friend) shaped his foundational commitment to climate science as settled — and he credits Bamsey publicly for it.

Career context: "Late last century" and the Canberra dinner party setting place this in the 1990s — during Allan's post-Keating government career. He confirmed he was "not working for the government in the late 1990s" (Ep022), so the most likely window is 1996–2002, possibly during the early Lowy Institute period (institute founded 2003). Bamsey was active in climate diplomacy throughout the 1990s and 2000s.

Bamsey independently corroborates Allan's Lowy Institute period¶

Evidence: Ep063 [00:36:42.260 --> 00:37:10.880]. Howard Bamsey unprompted. Confidence: High (third-party corroboration).

Bamsey recalls a conversation with Allan "when Allan was at Lowy" in which they discussed data from a global survey coordinated by the University of Chicago. The substance of what Allan told him: just before the Rudd government was elected, 65% of Australians thought climate was the most important issue; that figure later collapsed to ~5%. Bamsey uses this to illustrate the volatility of Australian climate opinion.

The biographical significance is the independent corroboration. Bamsey has no reason to misrepresent when or where he and Allan spoke; the detail is incidental to his argument. Combined with Allan's own first-person confirmations (Ep023, Ep035), Bamsey's recollection confirms the Lowy Institute period as a social and intellectual context in which Allan was actively engaging with climate policy researchers.

Style and Method Evidence¶

Hosting while knowing the domain: Allan's role in this interview is that of an informed co-expert, not just a facilitator. His question about domestic energy policy vs. international positioning shows he has thought carefully about Australia's climate governance failure; he is not learning from Bamsey, he is triangulating.
Gratitude folded into analysis: His introduction of Bamsey — "So I remember thinking to myself then, Okay, well, that's one big issue sorted out for me. So thank you" — manages to be both a warm personal tribute and a signal of where he stands analytically. The personal and the analytical are not separated.
Rhetorical genealogy: "A sort of channeling of Kevin Rudd" — Allan has a habit of connecting political figures through their rhetorical DNA rather than their policy positions. Biden "channels" Rudd; this is not agreement or disagreement with either, but an observation about where the rhetoric comes from.
Firm positions quietly held: "The science is in, and I'm not prepared to waste time on people who haven't paid it the attention that it needed." This is as firm a personal stance as Allan takes in the corpus on any contested question. He has reached a verdict and does not revisit it.

Reading / Listening Segment¶

No reading/listening/watching segment — guest interview format.

Open Questions¶

The dinner party date: "Late last century" places this in the 1990s. Can the specific context be narrowed? If Allan was not in government in the late 1990s (Ep022 confirmed), the dinner was possibly in a private/think-tank context — possibly connected to early climate policy networks in Canberra.
The Chicago Council survey: The Lowy Poll was partly modelled on the Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey. Was the Allan-Bamsey conversation about the Chicago Council's international module or a related survey? Bamsey's recollection dates it to just before the 2007 election — i.e., while Allan was still at Lowy (given the Rudd timing). This could further narrow the Lowy Institute departure date (he may still have been at Lowy in 2007 when the Rudd election approached).
Allan's NDC knowledge: He accepts Bamsey's account of NDCs as an Australian concept without pushing back, suggesting either agreement or prior knowledge. Did Allan have a role in the post-Kyoto climate negotiation preparation during his Lowy years or later?