Month: May 2023

Twenty two years ago, on this day, May 11, 2001, George “Supreme Court got me this gig” Bush did his masters’ bidding.

President Bush signs Executive Order 13211. It is a verbatim copy of a “suggested” order sent in March by American Petroleum Institute official James Ford (see March 20, 2001). The executive order, enigmatically titled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” exempts certain industry actions from federal review. [White House, 5/22/2001; Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 17] AND in a letter of 11 May 2001 The White House asked the US NAS for assistance in identifying the areas in the science on climate change where there are greatest certainties and uncertainties. The NAS was also asked for its views on whether there are any substantive differences between the IPCC reports and the IPCC summaries. An answer to the request was expected in early June, i.e., within less than a month. The NAS quickly appointed a special committee under the chairmanship of Dr Ralph Cicerone, chancellor of the University of California, Irving, CA, and a well-known researcher in atmospheric chemistry (and president of the NAS since 2005). Its report was ready in June…

(Bolin, 2007) Page 179

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush who had become president thanks to the decision of Supreme Court judges appointed by his dad was not losing any time in a bolstering the oil and gas industries and began trying to delay any action on climate change by asking for yet another appraisal because while an appraisal is being done you can defer any questions about what you are going to do. Once the appraisal has been done you can say that you’re studying and considering it and that buys you more time.  And maybe something else will come along and distract everyone and in any case you are demoralising and exhausting your opponents.

What I think we can learn from this

This is a standard technique that incumbents use to delay things to talk out the clock to make it at the same time seem as if they care about the issue because why else would they be calling for scientists to investigate, so it’s a win-win. It’s a deeply deeply cynical manoeuvre; it should be noted that the US government had been asking for these appraisals since 1979 and they always come back the same way. So this was not a disinterested search for knowledge – this was a delaying tactic by a deeply irresponsible man-child.

What happened next

The NAS delivered its appraisal and to precisely nobody’s surprise it said that climate change was real and things urgently needed to be done about it. Bush of course did nothing except make the problem worse.

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.

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 6, 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard convened a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group in order to …  get them to help him kill off renewables. This is really quite extraordinary. 

The Federal Government and fossil-fuel industry executives discussed ways to stifle growing investment in renewable energy projects at a secret meeting earlier this year.

Prime Minister John Howard called the meeting on May 6, five weeks before releasing the energy white paper on June 14.

The white paper favours massive investment in research to make fossil fuels cleaner, at the expense of schemes boosting growth in renewable energy.

Mr Howard called together the fossil-fuel-based Lower Emissions Technology Advisory Group to seek advice on ways to avoid extending the mandatory renewable energy targets scheme.

Anon, 2004. PM called talks to derail renewable energy The Age, October 3, 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a federal election coming. Opposition Leader Mark Latham was having some success, talking about renewables. The existing renewable scheme that had grudgingly started in 2002, was proving more successful than Howard wanted. Vestas had opened up a factory in Tasmania. And it was all looking as if Howard wasn’t going to be able to continue to easily rubbish renewables and therefore he tried to call in favours. We only know about this because it was leaked later that year.

What I think we can learn from this 

The slowness of the arrival of renewables is not simply a question about whether the technology is not ready or “Oh, the business models aren’t ready.” There is also often explicit effective resistance from business and from government. It’s rare for them to be caught as red-handed as this. It didn’t seem to have much short term damage for Howard who won the 2004 Election.

What happened next

The Vestas factory in Tasmania shut down. Australian progress on renewables was slowed. John Howard deserves to rot in a fiery hell for what he did to Australia but personally, I don’t believe in hell so I’d just be happy to see him rot in a prison cell in The Hague on trial for crimes against humanity.

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.