Month: August 2025

Categories
Australia

August 11, 2005 – Bob Brown in the Senate

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 11th, 2005, Bob Brown, a man of undoubted physical and moral courage, said the following in the Australian Senate,

The motion calls on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to explain to the Senate his denial in the Federal Court that global warming exists and that the burning of coal contributes to global warming. He did not do that in his 20-minute speech to the Senate. It was his opportunity. The debate could have been concluded and we could be discussing other things, but he steered totally away from that because there is no way that he can answer his duplicity on the matter. There is no way that he can answer the double standards being exhibited as he tries to do the impossible—firstly, address climate change and, secondly, deny it.

Just yesterday in the Senate, in answer to a dorothy dixer on climate change from Senator Adams, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said:

… climate change is already affecting the climate in Western Australia, with quite significant reductions in rainfall in the south-west affecting farm production. It shows all of us in Australia just how important saving the climate is, just how important addressing climate change is and how important it is not only to mix substantial domestic policies to address this within Australia’s borders but to work steadfastly internationally to ensure that we have policies that work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions …

And

The extraordinary thing about the Australian newspaper’s page 7 story today, headed ‘Canberra in denial over greenhouse’, is that right next to it is an advertisement from Energy Australia. It has a little heading up the top, over a picture of a sprig growing out of a power pole, saying, ‘Nature-friendly power.’ This is one of the nation’s biggest energy providers, from the state—the coal state, if you like—of New South Wales. The first two sentences say:

It’s time to make the switch. Traditional coal-fired electricity produces large amounts of greenhouse gases, which cost our environment dearly.

How can we have everybody agreeing that that is a fact but the minister going into court and denying it? It is Alice in Wonderland; it is a total absurdity. It would be laughable were it not so serious.

ParlInfo – GLOBAL WARMING 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the Greens had formed nationally when it was obvious that it was a waste of time and energy – and opportunity – expecting the Labor Party (social democratic at its very best) to be anything more than a meat puppet for corporate interests, especially extractive ones (forestry, mining etc). They’d finally set up in the early 1990s, and Bob Brown was a key player in this.

The specific context was that Brown was protesting the utter criminal uselessness of the Howard government, which was resolutely trying to avoid doing ANYTHING that would inconvenience its fossil fuel mates.

What I think we can learn from this – Brown has behaved with honour, dignity, intelligence and courage. You can’t say that about many recent Labor sorts (Tom Uren gets a pass, obvs, Moss Cass, and a few others). Gillard on a very generous reading gets a “C+” on climate, which is better than Rudd, Keating etc. 

What happened next Brown stuck around and was instrumental in shepherding through the first carbon pricing scheme in Australia in 2011.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut) – All Our Yesterdays

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe”

Categories
Activism Australia

August 10, 2021- climate protest with burning pram…

Four years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2021,

The IPCC planned to release their sixth report and a spate of protests had been planned around Canberra ahead of it. CoCo was among a group of eight who planned to take their message directly to parliament. Their group included ANU Associate Professor Nick Abel, a climate scientist and kicked off when CoCo set fire to a pram and glued herself to the pavement. In the background was parliament house. As her fellow activists began to spray paint the words “Duty of Care” and “No Time” on columns across parliament, CoCo live streamed a speech about how she wanted to be a mother but could not “in all conscience bring a child into the world to face hell on earth.”

“The government, beholden to the fossil fuel lobby, has burnt my dreams,” she said.

It was a hammy performance, acted-up for the camera but the underlying message was true. CoCo had always wanted to be a mother but as she learned more about climate change, it was a future she would deny herself.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was – wait, you can’t remember 4 years ago? – The bushfires, the brutal heatwaves, the floods. The chickens coming home to roost.

The specific context was that Scott Morrison was still Prime Minister of Australia. Among other portfolios.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are toast. Sorry, but there it is. I’ve done ten of these posts on the trot, and have clearly got to stop (for now) before it just becomes a prolonged howl of rage. 

What happened next – More emissions. More jail terms for activists. More disasters. More despair.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends 

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit – All Our Yesterdays

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Australia

August 10, 2000 – States’ greenhouse gas failure

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2000 – as part of the “we’re gonna do stuff, and the states aren’t doing their bit” strategy, Environment Minister Robert Hill is dishing out smears.

“State governments – including South Australia – have failed “abysmally” to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions satisfactorily, Environment Minister Robert Hill said yesterday. Senator Hill said most states would achieve only half the cuts they had promised two years ago on signing the National Greenhouse Strategy.”

Anon, 2000. States’ greenhouse gas failure. Adelaide Advertiser, August 11, p. 13.

The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Hill, yesterday threatened to withhold up to $400 million in State funding for greenhouse gas abatement, and said NSW was more interested in producing “glossy brochures” than in taking real action. [POTS AND KETTLES]

The threat came as he said he believed the United States would ratify the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions regardless of who won this year’s presidential election. In addition, he said the Government would announce in a few months an early-credit scheme to encourage businesses to keep reducing emissions even before the protocol was ratified.

Senator Hill’s statements follow BHP’s threat last week to opt out of the Federal Government’s Greenhouse Challenge program, saying there were inadequate incentives to reduce emissions.

Clennell, A. 2000. Style Put Ahead Of Substance On Greenhouse: Hill. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 August, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the Federal Government was happy to blame state governments when it suited their interests – state-federal tensions are hardly new.

The specific context was that Howard and his colleagues were engaging in the usual blame-shifting.

What I think we can learn from this – Federal systems have more room for experimentation, but also blame-shifting.

What happened next Howard kept on blocking all action, including undermining the growth of renewables etc etc. Criminal.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Australia

August 9, 2000 – a new Greenhouse Strategy – including on LNG. Yeah, yeah sure.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, August 9, 2000,

The Federal Government is set to announce a new national strategy on greenhouse gases after a Cabinet subcommittee resolved key issues this week.

At a three-hour meeting on Wednesday [9th August], the Cabinet subcommittee on greenhouse agreed on a broad national greenhouse strategy, which would subsume ministerial wrangling over how individual industries such as liquefied natural gas should be affected by future government greenhouse decisions.

Taylor, L. 2000. Government set to unveil greenhouse strategy. Australian Financial Review, 11 August. P 15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that John Howard had made it clear he wasn’t going to take climate action, especially if it interfered with growth in fossil fuel exports. He’d already carved out an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto conference in 1997. 

The specific context was that the Howard government was about to discuss whether to debate an emissions trading scheme, and presumably this sort of thing was there to make at seem that SOMETHING was being done. 

What I think we can learn from this – much of what passes for “policy” announcements is there as perception management/public relations.

What happened next – Howard kept on blocking all action, including undermining the growth of renewables etc etc. Criminal.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 9, 1999 – The Australia Institute calls for emissions trading

Twenty-six years ago, on this day, August 9, 1999, the Australian Financial Review deigned to cover climate change…

The introduction of a domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme could generate $7 billion in annual revenue, enabling government to cut the company tax rate to 30 per cent, abolish accelerated depreciation and reduce payroll tax by 60 per cent, according to a paper by the Australia Institute.

“Emissions trading has the potential to become an important tool in environmental protection and economic and fiscal management,” the institute’s Mr Clive Hamilton and Mr Hal Turton say in their paper Business Tax and the Environment Emissions trading as a tax reform option, released last week.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Emissions trading call `half-baked’. The Australian Financial Review, 9 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that putting a price on things you don’t like, to encourage decreased use (cigarettes, anyone?) is hardly controversial, especially if you’re going to use money raised to explore alternatives.
Or rather, it is VERY controversial to those people currently making money and wanting that to continue. Two carbon tax proposals had been defeated already, and attention therefore switched to “emissions trading schemes.”

The specific context was that Australia had signed (but not ratified) the Kyoto Protocol, and so ways and means to ‘reduce’ Australia’s emissions (it had a 108% target!) were being investigated, not just by The Australia Institute but also other outfits.

What I think we can learn from this – the simplest and in some ways least significant actions turned out to be, well, impossible.

What happened next – Prime Minister John Howard killed off two proposals for Emissions Trading Schemes, in 2000 and 2003. States got interested in doing a “ground-up” scheme among various states. This never really got off the ground, before action turned back to the Federal level in 2006-7.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

August 8, 2006 – MIT Review on “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 8th, 2006. MIT Review has a story on, well, “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean” calling it a “A safe, high-capacity method could make carbon sequestration more practical.” 

God forbid breathless technophilia ever infect people’s cognitive faculties…

One way to combat global climate change is to directly capture carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as it is being emitted, and store it safely. But methods of carbon dioxide sequestration, notably, pumping the gas into underground geologic structures such as exhausted oil reservoirs, are not practical in many areas, and raise fears that the stored carbon dioxide will escape.

A better way to store carbon dioxide: Pump it into the sea floor in liquid form. There,high pressure and cold temperatures make it more dense than water in the surrounding rock, preventing it from rising to the surface. (Source: Daniel Schrag. Artist: Jared T. Williams)

Now researchers at Harvard University and Columbia University have proposed a new method for trapping nearly limitless amounts of carbon dioxide – a technique they say will be secure, as well as a practical option for areas located far from underground reservoirs.

The researchers, in an article posted online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, propose that carbon dioxide be pumped into the porous sediment a few hundred meters into the sea floor in deep parts of the ocean (greater than 3,000 meters deep), in what one of the researchers, Dan Schrag, professor of geochemistry at Harvard, calls “a fairly simple, permanent solution.”

The key was finding a “sweet spot,” where the pressure and temperature of the surrounding environment make carbon dioxide more dense than surrounding fluids, thereby trapping it in place. This situation occurs at the bottom of the ocean because of a combination of high pressure and low temperatures – a fact others have also noted in proposals to store carbon dioxide in deep parts of the ocean.

Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean | MIT Technology Review

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from the mid-1970s various scientists had been saying “well, look if carbon dioxide build-up is actually a problem, we will just bury it in/under the oceans. Simples.”

The specific context was that the carbon dioxide build-up issue was back on the agenda because the Kyoto Protocol had come into effect – despite US and Australian intransigence – in February 2005. This meant that there would be a successor deal, and the rich countries wanted to be able to say “tech will fix it” to dodge calls for emissions cuts by rich people.

What I think we can learn from this is that we believe what is convenient to believe, and disregard the rest (yes, that’s a Simon and Garfunkel hollaback).

What happened next – the CCS bandwagon lost a wheel in 2011 or so. This has since been duct-taped back on, at considerable expense to the taxpayer.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

August 7, 1933 – Elinor Ostrom born

Ninety-two years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1933 Elinor Olstrom was born.

Elinor Claire “Lin” Ostrom (née Awan; August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012) was an American political scientist and political economist[1][2][3] whose work was associated with New Institutional Economics and the resurgence of political economy.[4] In 2009, she was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her “analysis of economic governance, especially the commons“, which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson; she was the first woman to win the prize.[5]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 308ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

What I think we can learn from Ostrom. Governance of common goods (it IS possible, it has been done). Garrett “Tragedy of the Commons” Hardin was not merely extremely racist but extremely racist and wrong.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Australia

August 7, 2007 – Cate Blanchett asks “Who on Earth Cares”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 7th, 2007, 

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) launched a new campaign – Who On Earth Cares – with Cate Blanchett as its ambassador, aiming to provide online community spaces for people to show they care about climate change in Australia, and who want to see Australia reduce its greenhouse pollution.

Cate Blanchett and Don Henry on Sunrise

https://www.treehugger.com/culture/who-on-earth-cares-cate-blanchett-does.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the ACF had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up as a Real Problem since the early 1980s, but only began campaigning on it in the late 1980s (for very understandable reasons). They’d done really good work (within the confines of what is ‘possible’) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the times change – the Liberals decided they’d been “betrayed” and Labor began to resent the rise of the Greens.

The specific context was that in late 2006 the climate issue had exploded onto the scene in Australia, and ACF hoped to develop pressure around this, especially as there was an election coming up…

What I think we can learn from this – there are waves of attention and inattention. During a wave you might get some promises of action. Whether you get action once the inattention kicks in depends on what kind of infrastructure of monitoring and pressure you have (or haven’t) built.

What happened next – Blanchett also, in 2011, fronted some adverts in support of Gillard’s carbon price – the “Say Yes” campaign. This, predictably, earned her the moniker “Carbon Cate” from the Murdoch press.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Australia

August 7, 1991 – “Draft Ecology Plans released”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1991, the backlash against “greenhouse” and ecology action stepped up a gear.

The price of petrol would rise sharply under sweeping proposals for ecologically sustainable development revealed yesterday by a Government taskforce.

The ambitious plan to make industry sustainable by avoiding the overuse of resources was commissioned by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke.

The ecologically sustainable development working groups, which are writing policies for nine industries, released draft reports yesterday and called for public comment.

1991 Peake, R. 1991. Draft Ecology Plans Released. The Age, 8 August, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been an upsurge in concern about environmental issues in the late 1960s, and the Federal Government had responded with the usual mix of new organisations (including a Minister for the Environment) and fine words. Everything had more or less died down/become predictable for a long time, until the late 1980s. In order to keep green groups onside for the Federal Election of March 1990 (it was going to be tight) the Hawke government had promised an “ecologically sustainable development policy process.”

The specific context was that the ESD had been a ‘success’ – in that the arguments for the status quo/no action had been exposed as lazy and half-baked. The problem was, the bureaucrats were in the wings, waiting to water down proposals, and feed tame journalists scare stories…

What I think we can learn from this is that we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. The same mechanisms are in place now, with an extra 80ppm in the atmosphere since then.

What happened next – Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who killed off all the green crap the way a lion kills another lion’s cubs when he acquires a new lioness. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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.

Also on this day: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
United States of America

August 6, 2009 – Governor Paterson versus the Greenhouse Effect

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 6th, 2009, 

New York Governor Paterson Sets Greenhouse Gas Targets, Planning Requirements

Executive Order Sets Goal of Reducing Emissions 80 Percent by 2050 and Requires Comprehensive Climate Action Plan

On August 6th, Governor David A. Paterson signed Executive Order No. 24 setting a goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This target is consistent with President Obama’s GHG reduction goals and the targets established in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 29, 2009, as well as bills currently being debated in the U.S. Senate. It is also consistent with long-term recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that governors had been pushing climate action during the “Dubya” Bush administrations, when the Federal government was doing less than nothing. And there were executive announcements and so forth stretching back to the late 1980s – see this one from New Jersey’s governor in 1989.

The specific context was that the Copenhagen “last chance to save the earth” conference was coming up in December.

What I think we can learn from this is that talk is cheap.

What happened next. I don’t know if New York a) produced a plan and then b) did anything to make it happen. I have my doubts about 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.

References

Salkin, P. E. (2014). The Executive and the Environment: A Look at the Last Five Governors in New York. Pace Envtl. L. Rev., 31, 705.

Also on this day: 

August 6, 1945 – Hiroshima

August 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats #auspol #climate