Month: June 2023

Categories
Australia

July 1, 1983 – Australian High Court “saves” Franklin River (it woz the activists wot won it)

Forty years ago, on this day, July 1, 1983, in a landmark decision, the High Court on circuit in Brisbane ruled by a vote of 4 to 3 in the federal government’s favour, – i.e. the Tasmanian government could not build a damn dam across the Franklin.  “Judges Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane were in the majority and justices Wilson and Dawson with Chief Justice Gibbs were in the minority” (source).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a huge campaign by environmentalists and “normal” civil society to save the Franklin river from being dammed. This included not just the usual marches and petitions and meetings, but lots of lobbying of individual politicians, targeting marginal seats and… nonviolent direct action. The ALP, under Bill Hayden, had promised to stop the Franklin and once elected in March 1983, new leader Bob Hawke followed through. The High Court narrowly said that the Federal Government had the power to do that sort of thing.

What I think we can learn from this is that court cases to courts will sometimes solidify a win for civil society that has been fought for, and sometimes overturn it. But even if the government has new powers, as it did in this case, getting them to use those powers is another thing altogether because ministers and prime ministers are usually coming under very effective counter pressures. 

What happened next. The dam never got built. The Feds never used those powers (Labor afraid of pissing off powerful miners and developers, and voters in specific seats). Tasmania remained a flashpoint for environmental concerns. And the Franklin campaign of 1983 became a touchstone and talisman and was unfortunately the subject of an attempt of repeat in Queensland in 2019. And you could argue that that gave Scott Morrison another three years as prime minister…

We can sometimes be seduced by our own myths, and the danger is probably greatest 35 years later, when those who were young and now thinking of legacy, and the granular detail has been long forgotten.

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.

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

June 30, 2010 – CCS will be at 5GW by 2020. (nope).

Thirteen years ago, on this day, June 30, 2010, DECC Minister, Gregory Barker, stated that the Government was committed to 5 GW of CCS by 2020 in a debate on 30 June 2010: 

“… the coalition Government are committed to carbon capture and storage, which will be a major plank in our efforts to decarbonise our energy supply by 2030; we are committed to the generation of 5 GW of CCS by 2020. We see the potential of CCS, not just for our domestic use and as part of our plan to decarbonise the economy, but as a huge potential export industry for the UK in which we can not only capture new markets for British jobs, but help the world in striving to decarbonise the global economy.42”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the new coalition government was making the right noises after the previous Brown government had established a CCS competition in 2007.

What I think we can learn from this is that the promises around CCS have been persistent. The delivery, not so much.

What happened next

The first competition was abandoned. A new competition set up in 2012 was unilaterally abandoned in 2015 and there has been a long slow process of getting CCS going again since then. 

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..

Categories
International processes Japan United Kingdom

June 29, 1979 – Thatcher uses carbon dioxide build-up to shill for nuclear power

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 29, 1979, at the G7 meeting in Tokyo, new UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave a radio interview to journalist Bob Friend where she explicitly mentioned the greenhouse effect, in order to defend/extend nuclear (this during G7 meeting in Tokyo).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that an interdepartmental committee set up by the Labour government was in process of delivering its findings. The Thatcher government wanted to bury it. Meanwhile Thatcher was a big fan of new nuclear… Thatcher had been briefed about the reality of climate change by her Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashworth and according to an interview with him she responded with incredulity and the statement ‘you want me to worry about the weather?’

What I think we can learn from this

Thatcher knew about the greenhouse effect and was willing to use it as a wedge issue against anti-nuclear greens.

What happened next

The G7 communique name-checked climate change, which then largely disappeared from these sorts of meetings for ten years. It would be 1988 before she started talking sense possibly after Crispin Tickell finally got through to her.

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.

Categories
United States of America

June 29, 1956 – Just DRIVE, she said…

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, June 29, 1956, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 is signed, officially creating the United States Interstate Highway System.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US economy after WW2 was based on the growth in car ownership, as per the quote in Noam Chomsky’s “World Orders, Old and New” with Eisenhower saying it “put a nice stable floor under the economy.” The Great Acceleration in every sense…

What I think we can learn from this

The Federal Government instituted the highway systems to improve transport pretending that it was in some way a defence gesture because you’re not allowed to do industrial policy ETC in the US nakedly – you have to dress it up usually as defence.

What happened next

The great car economy took off. There will be no survivors

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.

Categories
Canada International processes

June 28, 1988 – Greenies want deep emissions cuts. Doesn’t happen. #TorontoTarget

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 28, 1988, NGOs suggested deep deep cuts. Ha ha ha

Developed nations should commit themselves to a 50 per cent reduction in the use of fossil fuels by 2015 to slow and then stop the warming of the Earth, a group of non-governmental organizations said yesterday at a conference in Toronto on the atmosphere.

McInnes, C. 1988. Cut use of fossil fuels by half, group urges. The Globe and Mail, 29 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Changing Atmosphere conference was a mix of NGOs and scientists and the engineers were pushing for a very ambitious target, as this press release based report shows, a 50% reduction by 2015

What I think we can learn from this

It was the NGOs who knew what was needed and and were “Demanding The Impossible” or “the necessary,” as you might also look at it

What happened next

The actual target presented at the end of the conference was a watered-down compromise of 20% reduction by 2005.  And this was adopted with caveats by various nations but did not succeed in the United Nations process. which called merely for stabilisation by the year 2000 of rich nations (which none met) – his was of course a farce and a betrayal

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.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

 June 27, 1998 – we’ll trade our way outa trouble (not)

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 27, 1998, the Australian state broadcaster, Radio National, broadcast a programme about the joys of then-almost-fashionable Emissions Trading…

1998  Radio National Earthbeat on Emissions Trading

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Radio National (Organisation)

Michael Walsh (Guest)

Ian Causley (Guest)

Hugh Saddler (Guest)

Peter Graham (Guest)

Anna Reynolds (Guest)

Alexandra de Blas (Reporter)

Alexandra de Blas (Presenter)

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earthbeat/greenhouse-emissions-trading/3647076

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberal party was wanting to seem like it cared about climate change at some level. There was after all an election coming and so it had started making some noises about emissions trading and the New South Wales premier Bob Carr was making a lot of noises.

What I think we can learn from this

Emissions trading is popular with diverse social actors because it allows, effectively, the appearance of doing something when you are not. And some people can get seriously rich.

What happened next

An Emissions Trading Scheme was presented to Cabinet in the year 2000 and killed off by Nick Minchin. Emissions trading never really got off the ground, and has been beset by enormous and predictable difficulties. Has it actually reduced any emissions anywhere? That’s a good question.

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.

Categories
Australia

June 26, 1986 – “our children will grow old  in a world that fragmenting and disintegrating.”

On this day in 1986 the Melbourne newspaper The Age ran a decent and entirely prescient spread about the coming crisis.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the pivotal Villach conference in September 1985, scientists were pulling every lever they could. They had cred and salience because of the Ozone Hole.  The CSIRO (Australian Science Body) was, with the help of the Commission for the Future, getting its public-facing act together. More immediately, the Age had run a brief front page story on 19 June.

What we can learn

The predictions were right, give or take

What happened next

Opportunities to hold hands, proclaim our virtue and … emissions. Lots of emissions

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.

Categories
United States of America

June 26, 1988 – it’s SHOWTIME for climate…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 26, 1988, one of the major US networks goes all in on our doom…

“The Inside Sunday edition of the CBS Evening News for June 26, 1988 featured a very unusual eight-minute environmental story that led with the greenhouse effect, linking it to the high temperatures of the 1980s. The Goddard Institute’s David Rind and climatologist Thomas Karl warned of future warming and discussed the need to decrease the production of carbon dioxide.”

sorry – can’t lay hands on source right now!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the United States was suffering a prolonged drought with the Mississippi at its lowest level ever. Farmers’ crops destroyed and heat waves. On the 23rd James Hanson had given testimony and then made statements to journalists immediately after which had caused uproar.

It’s crucial to understand as per the Grant Swinger spoof that everybody knew about the greenhouse effect more or less because it had been spoken of intermittently for 20-years and especially in 1983, less than 5 years previously.

What I think we can learn from this

Eight minutes of news broadcast is enormous. Everybody knew. The problem is not one of knowledge; the problem is one of Power.

What happened next

The fossil fuel fans fought back. They started to flood the media with b******* knowing that balance was bias. They also successfully lobbied government to go slow on international negotiations. Thirty five years later here we are.

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.

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage

June 25, 2003 – the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum is created

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 25, 2003, the great and the good talk climate…

2003. Platts – US, EU, 12 countries agree to develop carbon capture technologies.[CSLF deal signed]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Bush administration had pulled out of Kyoto and had turned to technology in inverted commas as a way of pretending that it gave a s*** about emissions reductions. The Europeans as usual had to pretend that the Americans were not pretending and hope for the best.

What I think we can learn from this

 These technology fantasies, these fantasies of techno salvation ISM are socially necessary under the current system and frankly under any imaginable system humankind can only be there a very little reality.

What happened next

 the talk of imminent rollout of CCS has continued unabated ever since very few CCS plants have been built and the scale of the problem is beyond enormous you simply couldn’t build CCS that fast

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..

Categories
International processes Norway

June 24 1985 – Climate change rears its head at a development meeting…

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, June 24, 1985, the question of climate change was brought to the development table (not for the first time).

The third meeting of the world commission on environment and development began in Oslo today with serious concern over acid rain and greenhouse effects, according to a report from oslo. The seven-day meeting started with two days of public hearings at which non-government organizations testify on marine mammal conservation, possible irreversibility of acid rain effect and greenhouse effect on other energy-related issues. Dr. Irving Mintzer from the World Resources Institute (WRI) reviewed greenhouse effect by which carbon dioxide in the atmosphere impedes the ability of the earth to radiate back into space the heat from the sun. He also warned that other gases like methane and chlorofluorocarbons may amplify the warming effect of carbon dioxide. As an effect of greenhouse, the sea level would rise 70 to 100 cms and cause coastal flooding and salt water intrusion into rivers and ground water reservoirs which would disrupt the life of 40 percent of the world’s population dwelling in coastal areas, mainly in Bangladesh, vietnam, Egypt, the Netherlands and the U.S. gulf coastal areas.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 348.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1983 the World Commission on Environment and Development had been set up kind of a sequel or extension of the Brandt report published in 1980 and is clear from this meeting that climate was already well on the agenda.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is now 40 years since international bureaucrats were joining the dots about specific problems that would be faced.

What happened next

The Brundtland report was released in 1987. It gained a lot of traction because the second Cold War was winding down and everybody needed something new to talk about. And the environmental problems were becoming very clear especially thanks to the Amazon deforestation and the Ozone hole… Climate would explode in mid-1988.

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.