Month: November 2022

Categories
Denial Industry Associations Kyoto Protocol United States of America

November 5, 1997 – Global Climate Coalition co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference

On November 5, 1997, twenty five years ago today, the Global Climate Coalition [bunch of oil companies, automobile companies and assorted denialists] co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference. With the third meeting of the UNFCCC (United Nations agreement on climate) looming, denialists funded by the oil and car industries (among others), met to try to make life even harder for the Clinton Administration.

1997  “On November 5, the GCC coordinated a national conference opposing the Clinton Administration’s involvement in the Kyoto conference. The conference was sponsored by a number of radical anti-environmental organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, People for the West!, and the Environmental Conservation Organization  

A CLEAR view Vol 4, Number 16

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

“Our” failure to act on climate is not JUST down to ignorance/laziness etc. It has also been helped on its way by determined and clever opponents of action.

What happened next

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed, but neither the USA or Australia ever ratified it. It limped into existence because Russia DID ratify it, as a quid pro quo for getting into the World Trade Organisation.   Kyoto was supposed to be replaced in 2012, but the 2009 Copenhagen meeting ended in chaos etc. And then Paris and… oh, what a shitshow.

Categories
Australia

November 5, 1992 – Jeremy Leggett calls Australian petrol price cuts “insane”

On this day, November 5 in visiting British geologist and Greenpeace climate adviser gave a speech at the National Press Club. With a Federal Election imminent in March 1993) he weighed in on Australian domestic policy, days before the so-called “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” is launched., 

A visiting environmental scientist — an expert on the greenhouse effect — has branded as “insane” the federal Coalition’s promise to cut petrol prices if it is elected.

Dr Jeremy Leggett, who works for the environmental group Greenpeace in Britain, told a National Press Club lunch yesterday that the Coalition’s plan to cut petrol prices flew in the face of world concern about global warming.

“You reduce petrol prices at the direct peril of generations of Australians to come,” he said.  And – In Canberra yesterday the World Wide Fund for Nature launched what it called a “green print” for Australia’s future over the next three years.

The document called for endangered species protection legislation to be enacted this year, for the Federal Government to act on the recommendations of its ecologically sustainable development process and for ratification of conventions on climate change and biodiversity.

Leggett’s speech – “Accounting for Global Warming, Financial Institutions Wake Up To the Impacts”

Mussared, D. 1992. Pledge to cut petrol prices ‘insane‘. Canberra Times, Friday 6 November, page 5

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Australian ambition to do anything about climate change had been wilting for a year, and in 1992 new Prime Minister Paul Keating had basically binned all the ‘green crap’ (to use a term David Cameron later used).

All that was left was the names and jargon to throw around, disconnected from any reality, any ambition, any responsibility.

Why this matters. 

We know who did this.

What happened next?

Decades of denial – hard or soft,  predatory delay, “triangulation” etc.

Categories
United Kingdom

November 4, 1991 – UK Government launches first of many blame-shifting publicity campaigns on #climate

On this day, November 4 in 1991,  the UK Government launched a £10m campaign  “Helping the earth begins at home”.

The usual guilt-tripping about energy efficiency (with no support for renters or people on low-income).

Quickly forgotten, but a good example of how little actual joined up thinking there is.

There’s a good article by Steve Hinchcliffe (1996) “Helping the earth begins at home The social construction of socio-environmental responsibilities”, Global Environmental Change Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 53-62

To be clear, OF COURSE we need behaviour change, but not if those are going to kick bigger decisions about overall demand reduction, fuel-switching, removing fossil fuel subsidies into the long grass….

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 351ish ppm. At time of writing it was 416ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Climate change (then called “the Greenhouse Effect” or “global warming” had burst onto the public scene in 1988. Everyone was making pledges, scratching their heads, clutching their pearls, wringing their hands. And the Thatcher government wanted to be able to play a game of pin the blame on the donkey…

Why this matters. 

Blame-shifting has been going on a long time. And the same technique keeps getting re-used, again and again and again. Why change a winning game?

What happened next?

The campaign went nowhere, but got dusted off, rebranded and reused for the next few decades, until the collapse of human civilisation.

Categories
Australia

November 4, 2006 – Australians “Walk against Warming”

On this day, 16 years ago, a few months into one of the periodic explosions of concern about climate change, a Big Event happened in Sydney (and elsewhere)

“The Walk against Warming in Sydney on 4 November 2006, connected to similar events around the country, provided further cause to worry about the environment movement’s strategic grasp of the change opportunity now emerging. Business in many guises is now a key part of driving climate action, yet there was no formal sign of this at the rally. The speakers were the usual suspects: an environmental group, a trade unionist, Greens leader Bob Brown, the then ALP environmental spokesman Anthony Albanese and a church leader. Not a business leader or commercial voice to be heard, and when the Sunday papers reported the event the next morning, they were mainly interested in a celebrity participant, the Hollywood star Cate Blanchett.”

(Hogarth, 2007:62)

For an account – see here.

For my two cents, see this piece in The Conversation from 2018 about the (limited) utility of marches

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 382ish ppm. At time of writing it was 416ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

We may be beyond ups and downs in public awareness now, with the wreckage piling up around us all the time. But even within that “pervasive awareness” there will be lulls, when “normal life” seems to be returning. So, good to remember this pattern.

What happened next

The climate wars – Howard versus Rudd, Abbott versus Gillard.  Exhaustion for the small groups that tried to make a (local/national/global) difference.  Lost opportunities, wasted time that we didn’t have. So, you know, the usual.

Categories
Australia Denial

November 3, 2000 – Australian denialists get American scientist to testify about Kyoto Protocol, smear IPCC

On this day, November 3 in 2000,  American scientist Richard Lindzen  testified to an Australian Senate investigation of Kyoto Protocol, at the behest of the denialist group that grandly and inanely took the name of a French chemist called  Lavoisier…

According to the final senate report

“Professor Richard Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, questioned the idea of ‘scientific consensus’ of reports of the IPCC. He claimed that the IPCC has hundreds of scientists, each working on a couple of pages, with none ever polled to assent to the summary. This, he claimed, is used as a bludgeon for questioning. Further, he claimed that scientists permit this to happen for their own self-preservation and to maintain an interest in the science.”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 369 or soppm. At time of writing it was 416ish ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Australia had extorted an absurdly good deal at the December 1997 climate conference in Kyoto, with a “reduction” target of … an 8% increase in emissions,  and a huge loophole for “avoided emissions” for deforestation.

But Prime Minister John Howard really didn’t want to ratify it.

There was argy-bargy back and forth, as climate was used as a chip in the “culture” war.

A Senate Investigation was underway and the so-called Lavoisier Group invited Richard Lindzen to give testimony.  (The links between Australian and the USA on climate denial go back to the very early 1990s).

Why this matters. 

The creation of ignorance and doubt about basic scientific facts has been a favoured tool in the hands of those who want things to carry on as they are.

What happened next?

Howard, on June 5 2002 (World Environment Day) announced he was not going to ratify Kyoto.

Categories
Australia

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

On this day, November 2 in 2009, 

Abbott had dropped his daughters at the bus stop and was driving back across Roseville Bridge at about 7.30am when he turned on 2GB and heard Malcolm Turnbull having a set-to with Alan Jones. If you listen to a tape of that 2 November 2009 exchange now, you hear Turnbull refusing to kowtow to Jones, who becomes hysterically agitated about the ‘hoax’ of global warming and a secret deal by world leaders which will bleed $50 billion from Australia and send it off to South America. Turnbull is sharp with Jones once or twice, asking to be heard, reminding him his heroes Margaret Thatcher and John Howard wanted action on global warming: ‘Don’t you think,’ asks the leader of the Opposition, ‘you sound like the old lady who says the whole world is mad except for thee and me, and I have my doubts about thee?’

Abbott thought Turnbull’s leadership was terminal at that moment. What he was hearing was  bar-room brawl between his leader and the guru of a great swathe of the Liberal Party. This was no way to deal with Alan Jones. Turnbull wasn’t showing the necessary respect. It would cause immense damage.

(Marr, 2012:73)

[see also Paul Kelly “Triumph and Demise” on same period – Turnbull trying to get CPRS through with Rudd enjoying his pain too much to bother making a deal. You never hear the ALP talk about that – instead they like to bash the Greens…]

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 385ish ppm. At time of writing it was 41ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

John Howard had resisted any climate action for as long as possible, but finally in late 2006 had switched too a fallback of asking a civil servant to look at emissions trading – the Shergold Report, as much of a u-turn as you were going to get. He then got blown away in the November 2007 elections by Kevin “I’m from Queensland, I’m here to help” Rudd. Turnbull had overthrown first post-Howard Lib leader, Brendan Nelso, brought some Libs with him, not others….

Why this matters. 

We should always be alert to “but for a nail the battle was lost” and just how mad-as-a-box-of-frogs-left-on-the-back-seat-of-a-Ute the internal dynamics of political parties can be.

What happened next?

The Climate Wars

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

On this day, November 1 in 1975, climate scientist Stephen Schneider tried to keep folks eyes on the prize, given how many various books and hypotheses were already being thrown around

On the Carbon Dioxide–Climate Confusion  Stephen H. Schneider J. Atmos. Sci. (1975) 32 (11): 2060–2066.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

By the mid 1970s, a cottage industry had grown up around “weird weather.”

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that there were claims and counter-claims, some outlandish

What happened next?

By the late 70s it was pretty damn clear that it was a carbon dioxide problem…