On this day, September 7, 1936, the last surviving member of the thylacine species, Benjamin, dies alone in its cage at the Hobart Zoo in Tasmania.
We are living through the sixth great extinction. And causing it. Hohum.
On this day the PPM was 310ish. Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
This is not a climate event, per se, but the same mentality that exterminated the tigers, and the Tasmanian Aborigines, is at play in the destruction of life on earth.
What happened next?
The extinctions have escalated.
And First Dog on the Moon had two excellent cartoons (the latter apologising for the former).
On this day, September 6, 2000, South Australian Senator Nick Minchin puts out a press release… I know, hold the front page, right…
But the context is that the first attempt to introduce a national level emissions trading scheme had just been defeated – with Nick Minchin largely responsible. This was the semi-gloating declaration of victory…
Below is a quote from the ever-reliable Jim Green, writing in “Green Left Weekly”
The federal Coalition government has taken a number of decisions to reassure big business that measures adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact.
Federal minister for industry, science and resources Nick Minchin outlined “specific commitments” to industry in a September 6 press release. They were:
● that a mandatory domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme will not be introduced “prematurely”;
● that the government “will involve industry from the inception through to the implementation phase of greenhouse gas abatement policies and strategies that impact on the industry”;
● that the government will work internationally “to get Australia the best possible greenhouse position”;
● that the government will assist in “minimising the burden of greenhouse measures on business through cost-effective actions”; and
● that the government will not “discriminate against particular projects or regions in greenhouse policies and programs”.
“What we are saying to industry is that in any decisions we make on greenhouse, we will work to maintain their international competitiveness. This is a framework for the government’s greenhouse policy processes. These are all common sense measures that will allow Australian industry to grow and meet our Kyoto commitments. It’s good news for industry, which has warmly welcomed the government’s commitments”, Minchin said.
The government’s “specific commitments” are noticeably lacking in specifics. Canberra’s primary aim is simply to reassure business interests that measures to curb escalating greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact on their activities.
Green, J. 2000. Business warms to greenhouse ‘commitments’. Green Left Weekly, 13 September.
On this day the PPM was 367.15 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
There is inertia in human systems, but that inertia is often helped on its way by intransigence. And that intransigence is not “stupid”. Underestimate the opponents of action at your peril…
What happened next?
Prime Minister John Howard got away with it for two more elections. Only in 2006-7 did this unravel for him.
On this day, September 5, 2005, then Labor opposition spokesperson for the environment Anthony Albanese (where have I read that name recently?) introduced a private member’s bill
And oh, look, he’s all in favour of climate triggers…
On this day the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 376.89 ppm Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
The context is that the Liberal National government of John Howard was enthusiastically boosting fossil exports, doing everything it could to slow renewables and to scupper international action. Labor were trying to make political capital out of this (and Albanese also – to be fair – seems like a decent human being who understands, on some level, what is at stake for our species).
Why this matters.
It doesn’t, does it? “We knew.” That can be our obituary. Smart enough to understand the dumb things we were doing, not smart enough to stop doing the dumb things.
What happened next?
We kept digging and burning, burning and digging. A small subset of that “we” got seriously rich doing it.
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.
On this day, September 4 2006, the Royal Society (venerable Science outfit, 360ish years old) asked the American oil company Exxon to knock it off with the climate denial support.
On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 379.04 ppm Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
Exxon had been/has been an enormous source of climate denial, despite their own scientists saying in the 1970s that yes, indeed, global warming because of the burning of fossil fuels was going to be a serious thing. A bunch of scientists who don’t like hand-to-hand combat coming out and saying “stop right there thank you very much” was a big deal.
On this day, September 2nd 2002, Midnight Oil lead singer Peter Garrett gave a lecture at ANU, pointing to “community action” as the only real hope….
“In a time of change so fundamental that even the notion of humanity was not immune, being passive was to accept impending doom, Midnight Oil lead singer and environmental activist Peter Garrett said. Speaking at the Australian National University’s public lecture series yesterday, the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation decried the country’s environmental record, yet pointed to community action as the only real hope.”
Centenera, J. 2002. Garrett urges community to take action. Canberra Times, 3 September, p. 5.
On this day the PPM was 370.93 ppm Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
Community action was never going to be enough. And it is so hard to sustain…
What happened next?
Australians got agitated about climate change in large numbers a few years later (2006), but the politicians fucked it up (if your perspective is that they are there to serve current and future generations. If you think they are there to protect the rich and powerful in the short term, then….).
Julia Gillard did the best she could, got some legislation passed – inadequate, but passed. In an act of cosmic vandalism, the next Prime Minister, a deeply inadequate figure called Tony Abbott, repealed it.
Another wave of community action happened. And the atmospheric concentrations kept rising…
On this day 2nd-3rd September 1972 the then new Friends of the Earth Adelaide held a two day seminar in Adelaide asking the question “Is technology a blueprint for destruction”?
(The word “blueprint” was on everyone’s lips because of the Blueprint for Survival published by The Ecologist.in January of the same year.)
In his opening address, Professor G.M. Badger, Vice-Chancellor of the host institution – University of Adelaide – (and Professor of Organic Chemistry from 1954) had this to say
“I mentioned inevitable pollution, by which I particularly meant carbon dioxide, because when any fossil fuel is burnt, carbon dioxide is an inevitable product of it. Carbon dioxide is not usually considered a pollutant, but it is well to remember that it can be extremely serious for mankind. It plays an important part in the photosynthesis of plants, but its concentration in the atmosphere has increased over the last 70 years from 290 parts/million in the 19th century to 320 parts/million today, and it is still increasing by 0.7 parts/million/annum.
The significance of this increase lies in what is called the glasshouse effect… If this persists, the consequences could be extremely serious. It does not require a great increase in the mean world temperature to start melting the ice-floes and to change the world’s climate.”
The theme was also taken up by at least one of the speakers, Professor Bockris.
“
On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 324.84 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
We knew. Fifty years ago we knew enough to be worried. By forty years ago we knew enough to start taking serious action.
What happened next?
The warnings continued. And so did the behaviours that led to the warnings.
