Month: November 2023

Categories
Australia Denial United Kingdom

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Ten years ago, on this day, November 8, 2013, John Howard gave a speech at the Global Warming “Policy” “Foundation” with the title “One Religion is Enough“

and 

Same day – Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396,7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had been booted out as Prime Minister, and even MP, partly because he’d been such a terrible dickhead on climate, as befits old white conservative men. 

The other context is that some “charity” called the Global Warming Policy Foundation had been set up and were holding annual lectures. So it seemed like a good idea to get little Johnny on.

It’s an interesting title, isn’t it, “one religion is enough”? Well, if we’re only going to have one religion, my vote is a for either a particularly humane form of Buddhism, or Fuck it, let’s just go to paganism. Let’s get rid of the bearded sky gods. And especially when the bearded sky gods have been whittled down to one, because that seems to have caused no end of trouble. Or, if not caused, it been a useful adjunct to keeping that particular shit show on the road…

Aaand breathe….

What I think we can learn from this is that anti-reflexive organisations are good at gaming the media, they knew that this would get outrage and clicks. Makes them feel like they exist. 

What happened next

Well, the weather vane, Tony Abbott also gave a speech at the GWPF, and it’ll be interesting to see if the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds Scott Morrison too much of a reputational risk to them.

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
Activism

November 7, 2022 – journalist covering JSO protest arrested 

One year ago, on this day, November 7, 2022, Hertfordshire Police arrest a journo covering a Just Stop Oil protest.

On 21 Dec the police have to admit they breached his human rights…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 416ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various police forces had clearly got the message from various Home Secretaries that it was open season on protesters and journalists. “Who will rid us of this troublesome priest/freelance journalist.” 

What was interesting was that there was still outrage and fear and even a backing down by the Hertfordshire police. Whether that lasts or whether the forces of darkness have successfully chipped away at another of the hard-won protections remains to be seen. 

What I think we can learn from this even if it’s a game and we’re cynical, you need to defend laws protecting people.

What happened next

More JSO protests, now with added violence from bystanders. The government wanting to use the word “extremist” against anyone it doesn’t like… The usual slide into authoritarianism…

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

November 7, 2000 – Australian “The Heat is on” report released

Twenty three years ago, on this day, November 7, 2000, a committee of Australian federal MPs released a report about climate policy, in the wake of the government’s intransigence…

‘The heat is on: Australia’s Greenhouse Future’ Senate Committee report released:

The report criticises the Government for a lack of commitment to climate change policy. More than 100 recommendations are made.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had made it pretty clear that he wasn’t going to do anything on climate. So Labor and Democrat politicians, especially in the Senate, had done what you do in this circumstance – you use the parliamentary system to create space for dissident voices and critique of government policy, in the hope of making at least some government ministers and governing party members sit up and take notice. Maybe get some new ideas going, give NGOs a sense that they’re influencing matters, and keep the whole show – in every sense – on the road.

What I think we can learn from this

Reports always need to be read in context…

What happened next

The Howard government lost no sleep, and kept on being what it was.

Am I too cynical? Is that possible? Can you be cynical enough? The game is the game. 

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 Swtizerland

November 6, 1990 – Second World Climate Conference underway

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 6, 1990, the consequential bits of the “Second World Climate Conference” began in Geneva. That is to say, the politicians turned up (the scientists had been hard at work for some days already).

[see here for a Conversation article about protests etc]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first world climate conference in Geneva, in February of 1979 had been pretty much scientists and a few policy makers. You can read various accounts of it. But the short version is that those who were wanting a bold statement that said “carbon dioxide is a real problem and we need to start taking action now” were unable to overcome the veto of people like John Mason, head of the UK Meteorological Office who was a long term climate skeptic. 

The following ten years of science and advocacy had pushed climate onto the agenda. The second world climate conference had been pushed back six months so that it could suit political needs because this was no longer purely a scientific endeavour. Since 1985, new climate scientists had been trying to engage policymakers directly and urgently or beginning in late 1985.

The existence of the conference had forced the question of emissions reductions targets onto the table, because no politician wanted to get booed and heckled by their colleagues and the media. So, for example, while Australia had come up with a provisional or Interim Planning Target, as it was called, very few other nations had. There were protests, organised by Greenpeace, very polite, as the Swiss had it, (see my Conversation article). 

What I think we can learn from this

Want to shake loose the bureaucracy? Engineer events as action-forcers I guess? Or rather decision-forcers The action will depend on implementation, which may or may not happen….

What happened next

At the beginning of 1991, pretty much simultaneous with the push to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait the climate negotiations finally started. 

There was a third world climate conference, but it was a denialist event in Moscow, and no one speaks of it… 

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

November 6, 1989 – Noordwijk conference – “alright, we will keep talking”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, November 6, 1989, an international meeting about climate change began in Norway. It was one of many.in that period. It was to review the progress of the then-new IPCC and have discussions about a possible treaty (opposed by the US). 

“Attendees included ministers of 68 countries. The goal of the conference was creating a binding agreement on CO₂ emissions, which almost succeeded. The conference was organized by the Dutch environment minister Ed Nijpels and prepared by climatologist Pier Vellinga.[3]

The United States, Japan, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom did not want to make an agreement about the reduction of emissions. Even discussions about stabilizing emissions turned out to be difficult”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noordwijk_Climate_Conference

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US had been doing its level best to prevent any discussion of rich nations adopting targets for emissions reductions. Japan and Great Britain and the Soviet Union were also onboard with that. There had been a meeting at The Hague to try to kick this loose. The big nations were not invited. By Nordwijk it was all becoming a bit uncomfortable. But if you read Nathaniel Rich’s version, you get the idea that because Bill Reilly invited the wrong underling it all went tits up. It’s a little bit more complicated than that. And the brutal review of Losing Earth that I mentioned last year, it’s really worth reading. 

What I think we can learn from this

Statecraft is statecraft is statecraft.

What happened next

A flurry of meetings in 1990, on climate, environment, development etc. Culminated in the Second World Climate Conference. Then the negotiations for a climate treaty…

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

November 6, 1988 – Australian cartoonist nails response to #climate change

November 6 1988 

On this day in 1988 the Canberra Times ran a cartoon by Geoff Pryor nailed the Australian response to “the Greenhouse Effect” (and is still tolerably accurate today, 35 years later)

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110611748/12738842

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351,7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had just been the “Greenhouse 88” conference in all capital cities and Darwin. Everyone was grappling with “what is to be done?”  The coal industry was sitting tight, thinking it was all a fad that would blow ever…

What we learn is that we have learnt nothing.

What happened next?  Ideas for a carbon price and extra funding on energy efficiency and renewable energy were defeated. The coal export and LNG export infrastructure were radically expanded, and a small number of people got very very rich.  Pryor kept drawing for the Canberra Times until 2008, and then did some more drawing for the Saturday Paper.

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 Kingdom

November 5, 1969 – House of Lords question about the greenhouse effect

Fifty four years ago, on this day, November 5, 1969, Jestyn Phillips, a member of the House of Lords said the following – 

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he and British Railways have taken account of the fact that what were abnormal temperatures last summer may not be abnormal if we continue to discharge carbon dioxide into the air by the burning of various fossil carbons, so increasing the greenhouse effect?

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1969/nov/05/railways-use-of-continuous-welded-rail

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that it was clear that some members of the Lords were paying attention to what was being written in newspapers, magazines (including the Listener in April 1969). And the idea of the greenhouse effect was out there and of concern by 1969, including in the Financial Times and so forth. 

What I think we can learn from this

By November 1969, “even” politicians were talking about it, drawing (possibly fallacious) connections.

What happened next

In January 1970 a TV programme “And On the Eighth Day”, directed by Richard Broad, appeared.

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
Uncategorized

November 4, 1988 – no quick fix on climate, warns Australian Environment Minister

Thirty four years ago, on this day, November 4, 1988, the Federal Government’s Environment Minister, Graham Richardson – warns, at the Greenhouse 88 conference in Melbourne, that there is “no quick fix” for ‘the greenhouse effect’

The cover of “In Future” issue 11, the magazine of the Commission for the Future. The guy in the centre is Stephen Schneider. Top left is Barry Jones and Phillip Adams. Top right is Graham Richardson.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Greenhouse 88 had been the brainchild of the combination of “the Greenhouse Project” established in 1987, which had been a major project of the commission for the future and the Atmospheric Physics gang of the CSIRO.

What I think we can learn from this is that a smart politician and Graham Richardson – whatever else you want to say about him (and people have) – he’s smart. We should manage expectations and remind people that moments of exuberance and hope are no substitute for a long term decent movement. 

What happened next

The Greenhouse Action Australia organisation did its best to keep the momentum going. See Dan Cass’s excellent article. 

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
Agnotology Denial United Kingdom

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 3, 1990, the normally sane Financial Times published a brain fart of an article

Thomas, David (1990) The cracks in the greenhouse theory. Financial Times 3 November

There were claims that the IPCC organisers had deliberately excluded strong dissenters, such as Richard Lindzen, Hugh Elsaesser and Fred Singer, from participating in the IPCC. One unnamed scientist went so far as to claim that the supporters of the greenhouse theory ‘behave like Hitler’ by conspiring to prevent critics from publishing their conclusions in leading scientific journals (quoted in Thomas, 1990.)

Paterson, M (1996) Page 45

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report had been delivered two months earlier. Since then, there had been fierce contestation of it. And this article in the FT was part of the push back ahead of the second World Climate Conference in Geneva and the imminent start of the climate negotiations. So the FT was wanting to cater to its various members, readers, some of whom would want to doubt awkward physical realities.

Eleven months earlier, Forbes had run a similar piece of nonsense (Link).

What I think we can learn from this

I am not suggesting that the Global Climate Coalition or the British Coal board phoned up the editor of the FT and ordered him to order an underling to write this. That’s not how power works. That’s not how the world usually works, 99.99 times out of 100. 

What happened next

The FT stopped being quite so fucking useless on climate change. It’s currently quite good (especially when they publish my letters).

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
IPCC Science

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 2, 1990, scientists who had been involved in the pre-IPCC “Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases” were trying to see if they could get funding (they couldn’t, and the caravan had moved on).

“In November 1990 he wrote to WMO asking that ‘the AGGG should be either abolished or established on a formal financial basis with a clearly defined role’ (Dooge, 1990). There was no response and the AGGG was neither abolished nor given a continuation of its mandate. In Dooge’s words ‘it was death by starvation’.”

In Agrawala, S. (1999). Early science–policy interactions in climate change: lessons from the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. Global Environmental Change, 9(2), 157-169.
Chicago

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC had released its first report in August 1990 (it had been preemptively criticised by Greenpeace as inadequate). It wasn’t clear that the IPCC would necessarily go on and on as we know – so this letter about continuing to fund the AGGG was not as bizarre as it seems

The AGGG had been set up after the pivotal meeting in Villach in September 1985, as an attempt to get decent scientific information under everyone’s noses. It’s the kind of thing that pissed off the Departments of State and Energy and got the Americans kiboshing things, to control process.

What I think we can learn from this

We should remember that the IPCC was a compromise. It has obviously done great work, but we should never forget that it was created the way it was because that’s what the Americans wanted. And on that occasion the Americans were able to prevail…

What happened next

 The AGGG died for lack of money, and the existence of a big shiny alternative.

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.