Categories
Denial

February 20, 2010 – Chirstopher Booker being a tit, for once

Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 20, 2010,

In an article which appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on 20 February 2010, Christopher Booker purported to correct the misquotation contained in The Real Global Warming Disaster but this article contained yet further inaccuracies.[30] As a result, Houghton referred the matter to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC Reference 101959). Following the PCC’s involvement, The Sunday Telegraph published on 15 August 2010 a letter of correction by Houghton stating his true position.[31] An article supportive of Houghton also appeared in the edition of 21 May 2010 of New Scientist.[32]

The correct quotation was, “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.”[33]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the journalist Christopher Booker (a founder and first editor of Private Eye) had been writing various idiotic denialist screeds for a while. There was an audience for them among a certain kind of person who doesn’t want to admit that all the nice things that we have come with a price tag, and that people who are enjoying more of the nice things than other people are might have a responsibility to cut back and to help those other people, because that would be, well, that would be, in their eyes, an unfair infringement on their “liberty” and so forth and so forth. Also these people are enraged that it turns out that the dirty hippies who they’d been disparaging by this time for 40 years were right. 

So the way it works is that some awful book gets published, It doesn’t matter that it’s full of inaccuracies, that it has had no real peer review, it’s a book, and in the eyes of journalists, that makes it newsworthy.

And in the eyes of editors with pages to fill, well, they can get op eds and excerpts out of it, “all the adverts fit to print, all the news printed to fit,” and so on. 

And so what you see here is Booker just making shit up and being wrong and back and forth, back and forth, other people like scientist John Houghton having to waste precious time and energy, which Houghton had been having to do since, well, the early 1990s.

The specific context was that Copenhagen had ended in nothing, the “Climategate” bullshit was in full flow and the denialists had the winds at their backs.

What I think we can learn from this is that Christopher Booker may have been a talented journalist early on, but as an assessor of science and as a man of honour, he was a complete failure.

And those who took comfort in his lies, distortions, exaggerations are also frankly, failures. 

And of course, the Telegraph has continued to be a failure, as we see from its repeated apologies and quote clarifications in its ongoing, frankly psychotic campaign against net zero and Ed Miliband.

What happened next: The denial never stopped. It never will. These people painted themselves into a corner. To admit that they’d been wrong would destroy them emotionally, cognitively, so they won’t, but then they’ll pivot to, well, it’s too late to do anything about it, regardless of what the cause might be.

Booker died in 2019

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: 

February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

February 20, 1970 – South Australian premier sets up an Environment Committee

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Categories
Science Scientists

February 20, 1979 “An Assessment of the Possible Future Climatic Impact of Carbon Dioxide Increases”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, February 20, 1979 the following was published – 

“An Assessment of the Possible Future Climatic Impact of Carbon Dioxide Increases Based on a Coupled One-Dimensional Atmospheric-Oceanic Model” Hunt and Wells

https://doi.org/10.1029/JC084iC02p00787

A radiative-convective equilibrium model of the atmosphere has been coupled with a mixed layer model of the ocean to investigate the response of this one-dimensional system to increasing carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere. For global mean conditions a surface temperature rise of about 2°K was obtained for a doubling of the carbon dioxide amount, in reasonable agreement with the commonly accepted results of Manabe and Wetherald. This temperature rise was essentially invariant with season and indicates that including a shallow (300 m) ocean slab in this problem does not basically alter previous assessments. While the mixed layer depth of the ocean was only very slightly changed by the temperature increase, which extended throughout the depth of the mixed layer, the impact of this increase on the overall behavior of the ocean warrants further study. A calculation was also made of the temporal variation of the sea surface temperature for three possible carbon dioxide growth rates starting from an initial carbon dioxide content of 300 ppm. This indicated that the thermal inertia of the slab ocean provides a time lag of 8 years in the sea surface temperature response compared to a land situation. This is not considered to be of great significance as regards the likely future climatic impact of carbon dioxide increase.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the idea that carbon dioxide build-up could warm the planet goes back to Arrhenius in 1895. The idea got nudged forward by Guy Callendar in 1938 onwards, and then pushed to the next level by Gilbert Plass in 1953.

The specific context was that by the late 1970s, it was broadly agreed among the relevant scientific community that there was serious trouble ahead, and this is laid out in painstaking and painful detail in William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletter, which I am releasing through the course of 2026.

What I think we can learn from this is that information on its own, the truth on its own, will not set you free.

What happened next: More studies, more emissions, more concentrations, spasms of protest, but no action worthy of the name to actually bend the emissions curve down, and certainly reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 via various so called draw down projects is a complete fucking fantasy.

And I didn’t have kids because the second half of the 21st Century is going to make the first half of the 20th look like a golden age of peace, love and understanding. But I’m standing here narrating this, looking at sparrows and finches and things and I guess it’s my job just to enjoy it for as long as I can. I suppose.

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: 

February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

February 20, 1970 – South Australian premier sets up an Environment Committee

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Categories
Arctic

February 20, 1969 – The Arctic will melt

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, February 20, 1969,

“Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.”

Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs; Other Specialists See No Thinning of Polar Ice Cap

By WALTER SULLIVAN February 20, 1969. New York Times.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Arctic had been perceptibly warming since the end of the 19th century. And this had been spotted onwards and onwards from 1916 onwards. It was not a particularly controversial finding, though, the mechanism was in dispute, and the speed with which the changes would hit were within dispute.

The specific context was that all things environmental were a hot topic, because in January of 1969 the Santa Barbara oil spill had happened. You’d also had the Earth Rise photo from NASA, and everyone was beginning to worry about the impacts of man’s activities.

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve known that we were causing havoc and mayhem for a long time. We haven’t always been accurate on how that havoc and mayhem would unfold, because, well, after all, prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. It’s worth noting that Walter Sullivan, their science correspondent, had been neck deep in the International Geographical Year, publicity or reporting, so he knew what he was talking about.

It was also Sullivan who, in 1981 reported on James Hansen’s findings, I think, in August, and that ended up costing Hanson some funding, which had already been granted because the Reagan administration was, well, the Reagan administration. 

What happened next: More and more attention paid to the melting of ice caps and the freeing up of polar sea lanes, etc. And now as of 2026, well, the fights are on.

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: 

February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

February 20, 1970 – South Australian premier sets up an Environment Committee

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Categories
On This Day

On this day Feb 19 – fearful symmetries…

Fifty five years ago John Maddox is fulminating against the concern over carbon dioxide build-up. Yeah, Maddox, that one is gonna age like a glass of milk (30+ yrs later, he admitted he was wrong. Sort of).

February 19, 1971 – Nature editorial on “The Great Greenhouse Scare”

Exactly 10 years later? An article on, erm, acting now not later. Forty five years after this, we’re still not acting. Just pretending.

February 19, 1981 – Nature article “Greenhouse Effect: Act Now, Not Later”

On the same day (and perhaps some in the room had seen the editorial?) people in the Ecology Party, since renamed the Green Party – were talking about the climate threat. Forty five damned years.

February 19, 1981 – Ecology Party meeting in Wells warns of carbon dioxide build-up

The IPCC, ever the technocrat-dominated body, announced it would study the fantasy that is CCS. They released the report in September 2005.

 February 19, 2003 – “CCS to be studied by IPCC”

As the public gets worried about climate change, the lobbyists, with many tools at their disposal, spring into action…

 February 19, 2007 – Australian gas lobby hard at work…

Normally I don’t do an “on this day” post if I am putting up something new. But there were too many fearful symmetries here to be ignored.

Categories
United Kingdom

February 19, 1958 – the “Council for Nature” forms

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, February 19 1958, 

A meeting at Linneas Society London, from which Council for Nature group forms.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in the 1950s it was becoming clear that industrialization wasn’t just an issue for cities air quality, but also large chunks of the beautiful English countryside and diverse species were being wiped out. This had been going on for ages. Of course, I don’t want to say that it was just in the 50s.

The specific context was -well, I don’t know about the Council for Nature, presumably the Tory government wanting to look like it gave a shit. And there will have been people within the Tory government who did give a shit.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are always these fine sounding names slapped on state bodies that are there ostensibly to regulate and protect. These bodies always run out of steam, get captured, get corrupted, and occasionally renewed, but during their capture and corruption, they waste a lot of people’s time and hope and then cause cynicism, despair, apathy, which you could argue is ultimately a feature, not a bug.

What happened next: 

Oh, these groups come and go, get rebranded and waste a lot of everyone’s time and hope.

The Council for Nature. Nature 181, 867–868 (1958). https://doi.org/10.1038/181867a0

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: 

February 19, 1971 – Nature editorial on “The Great Greenhouse Scare”

February 19, 1981 – Nature article “Greenhouse Effect: Act Now, Not Later”

February 19, 1981 – Ecology Party meeting in Wells warns of carbon dioxide build-up

 February 19, 2003 – “CCS to be studied by IPCC”

 February 19, 2007 – Australian gas lobby hard at work…

 

Categories
Academia Coal United States of America

February 18, 2003 – “Coal Fires Burning Around the World: A Global Catastrophe”

Twenty three years ago, on this day, February 18, 2003,

This special coal fires edition of the International Journal of Coal Geology is a by-product of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) symposium entitled Coal Fires Burning Around the World: A Global Catastrophe, held on February 18, 2003 in Denver, CO. The purpose of the symposium, organized and convened by Glenn B. Stracher of East Georgia College, Robert B. Finkelman of the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, VA, and Tammy P. Taylor of Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM, was to disclose the severity of the coal fires problem to the scientific, engineering, and lay communities and to promote interest in the interdisciplinary study of this environmental catastrophe.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0166516204000096

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been measuring carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere accurately since 1958, and had been speculating about shitfuckery of monumental proportions, And from the late 70s that speculation had firmed up, there were various efforts to disprove or to test the idea significantly. For example, the Charney Report. But these had come to naught because of politicians’ ignorance and a lack of a social movement/civil society push.

It’s fairly elementary. 19th century physics, Greenhouse gases trap heat. Carbon dioxide is one, not the only greenhouse gas. If you put lots more of it into the atmosphere, you will get more heat. Take a look at Venus..

The specific context was that by 2003 it was clear that the United States, under George W Bush was not going to be any better, in fact, possibly even worse than his dad, and that there was going to be hell to pay. 

Of course, that hell would be paid, in the first instance, by all the other species on the planet, and people, mostly not rich and white and people not yet born. But hell has a way of catching up with you. And here we are in 2026. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the warnings have been endless, and there is a subset of humanity that just doesn’t give a fuck, and they are able to hire all sorts of goons, physical goons like ICE, intellectual goons like, well, frankly, most of academia, including humanities and well, it’s their planet. We just cling to the edges of it

What happened next: Bush kept being Bush. He was then, from sort of 2002-3 onwards, bigging up” technology”, which is always their answer, regardless of how implausible it is. 

And the emissions and the concentrations and the impacts they kept making themselves felt.

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: 

February 18, 1991 – Governor Bill Clinton says would give “serious consideration” to cuts of 20-30 per cent by 2004.

February 18, 2011 – Scientist quits advisor role (because ignored on climate?)

February 18, 2004 – “An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”

Categories
2003 Australia Carbon Pricing Finance Capital Kyoto Protocol Westpac

 February 17, 2003 – A bank wants to make money, and “save the planet”

Twenty three years ago, on this day, February 17, 2003,

SYDNEY, Feb 17, AAP – One of Australia’s big four banks has indicated its support for an international treaty to cut greenhouse gases.

Greenpeace today said initial findings of its survey of Business Council of Australia (BCA) members revealed Westpac supported the aims and objectives of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

AAP. 2003. Westpac supports Kyoto Protocol – Greenpeace. Australian Associated Press Financial News Wire, 17 Feb

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of rich countries having to reduce emissions was there from the beginning of public international climate concern in 1988, but the administration of George HW Bush had, using its diplomatic muscle, prevented targets and timetables for reductions being in the UNFCCC’s text at that point, Australia was playing, and I mean that in every sense, the role of a “responsible middle power”. However, the domestic forces arrayed against emissions reductions and policy instruments like a price on carbon dioxide to make reductions happen were extremely strong. 

The specific context was that in 1997 the Kyoto Protocol had been agreed, Australia had managed to get an extremely generous increase in its reductions. De jure 108% but de facto, once you took into account the land clearing clause, 130%.

In September 1998 the Canberra Times reported that Cabinet had decided it would not ratify Kyoto unless the Americans did. In March 2001 the Bush administration pulled the US out of Kyoto, and in June of 2002 Howard had followed through on that, choosing to make the announcement on World Environment Day, primarily, I assume, to own the libs. 

But business had seen value in Kyoto ratification. New South Wales had lots of forests and could get so-called carbon credits, but only if Australia ratified. Meanwhile, carbon trading was going to enable nice fat fees for consultants and bankers in lots of loopholes, but Howard was opposed. Therefore it’s not particularly surprising to see Westpac coming out in favour.

What I think we can learn from this is that “capital” is not unitary, not a monolith. There are competing, overlapping, conflicting interests, all of which need managing, usually within and between trade associations, but sometimes just the big beasts – the really big beasts – doing it behind closed doors.

What happened next: later on in that year, Howard blocked an emissions trading scheme for Australia that all his Cabinet wanted, and he went on to win another election. Westpac kept on talking, and in 2006 combined with the Australian Conservation Foundation, the biggest green group to push the case for “Early action on climate change” in April of 2006.

Meanwhile, during all this, the emissions kept climbing, the concentrations kept climbing, and the chances of humans, humanity, civilization, whatever label you want to stick on it, avoiding the absolute worst consequences of its own behaviour, shrank.

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: 

February 17, 1993 – President Clinton proposes an Energy Tax.

February 17, 2003 – “please ratify Kyoto Protocol” advisory group begs John Howard

February 17, 2003 – Bob Carr says John Howard showing poor leadership (too generous!)

Feb 17, 2004 – Zero Emissions Technology Conference in Australia. At peak excitement of tech solutions

February 17, 2013 – celebrities arrested at Whitehouse, protesting Keystone XL

Categories
Interviews

Andy Revkin: “Hope is an act more than a thing”

In my opinion (but I’m not alone) Andy Revkin (Wikipedia, his substack) is one of the giants of climate change reporting. His 1988 reporting, putting James Hansen’s pivotal testimony in broader context, and his later Dot Earth blog for the New York Times would be enough, on their own, to cement his status. But there is much more to say. Please read and share this excellent interview he has generously given to All Our Yesterdays. (Also, suggest other people to be interviewed!)

1. A little bit about yourself – where you were born, grew up, how you found yourself doing journalism.

I was born and raised in Rhode Island, a lucky circumstance that came with lots of access to the sea, from snorkeling to sailing to fishing. Some great high school teachers led me to ecology, ocean science and resource management. I headed toward a career in marine biology while at Brown University but after I won a traveling fellowship that took me around the world, I shifted to a focus on writing about the environment and science instead of doing the research. There is a lot more on my journey to, and within, journalism in this Sustain What post: Can There Be Passion and Detachment in Environmental Journalism?

2. Do you remember when and how you first heard about carbon dioxide build-up, and what you thought?

Late in 1984, my second year at Science Digest magazine, I was asked to write an article about nuclear winter – the hypothesis that vast plumes of smoke from cities burned in a nuclear war could reach the stratosphere and dangerously chill Earth. My reporting at the now-threatened National Center for Atmospheric Research introduced me to the supercomputers and models already being used to study global warming from accumulating heat-trapping carbon dioxide. That cover story ran in March 1985 and my first

cover story on global warming, at Discover Magazine, ran three years later. At first in my reporting, climate change felt like a simple pollution problem (like smog, acid rain, etc.) that would respond to regulation. But even in that first big story there were hints this was a vastly harder challenge. I’m glad I included this line, which really nailed a core reality: “[E]ven as the developed nations of the world cut back on fossil fuel use, there will be no justifiable way to prevent the Third World from expanding its use of coal and oil. How can the developed countries expect that China, for example, which has plans to double its coal production in the next 15 years in order to spur development, will be willing or even able to change course?” (Folks can download a pdf of the October 1988 Discover Magazine cover story here.)

3. What happened in 1983 that brought you to the environmental beat?

My youth in Rhode Island and my education all drew me toward environmental science and related challenges. That carried forward into my journalism. My first big prize-winning magazine feature story, in 1983, was on worldwide perils from worker exposure to the weed killer Paraquat. That also led my editors to sustain that focus.

4. That period, 1985-1992, was – it turns out – foundational (in good ways and bad). What are some of your most vivid memories of that period?

After my nuclear winter story was published in 1985, I quit Science Digest to join a sailing friend delivering a sailboat from Dubai to the island Republic of Maldives. Spending time in those low islets reinforced my interest in environmental and social change. I then moved to a reporting job at the Los Angeles Times, writing about regional pollution issues, wildfire risk and the like before returning East to magazines and that global warming cover story. Doing that climate reporting, I’ll never forget meeting a diplomat from the low-lying Maldives wandering halls at a big climate meeting in Toronto in June 1988, musing on how his country, most threatened by warming, was essentially invisible in the discussions. In 1989 I left my magazine job and headed to the Amazon rain forest for three months to do research for my first book, The Burning Season, on the murder of forest defender Chico Mendes. That experience reinforced for me how most environmental issues are symptoms of societal issues (Brazil’s military dictatorship at the time was promoting policies fostering clearing of the Amazon and that threatened the rights of the region’s inhabitants). The biggest insight that emerged for me through those years came in 1991, when when I was writing my second book, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast. In that book, published in 1992, I posited that humanity’s planet-changing surge was taking us out of the Holocene and into a “a geological age of our own making” that I proposed calling the “Anthrocene.” This was a decade before Paul Crutzen and other earth-system scientists formalized a proposal for the Anthropocene. (I ended up being a member of the Anthropocene Working Group from 2010 through 2016.)

5. What of your own work are you proudest, and why?

“The Burning Season” is by far the hardest and best thing I ever wrote; my 2,810-post, 100,000-comment Dot Earth blog for The New York Times has been described by others as a ground-breaking model for a learning-journey style of journalism on complex subjects; I think a few of my songs will stand the test of time – among those, “Arlington” and (hopefully) “Life is a Band.” 

6. Who else would you like to give a shout out to, in terms of climate reporting/advocacy/activism (go as long as you like)

My shout-out would be to the full community of tens of thousands of people devoting time to bending curves toward progress on climate understanding (from basic research to education) and affordable access to clean energy (from basic research to policy to communication to innovation and commerce). That’s because there’s no single strategy, tactic, focal point, or person that matters most. And it’s because a diversity of responses to this kind of problem is not only essential; it’s also inevitable given human nature. Read my writing on the concept of “response diversity” as a sustainability strategy for lots more (here on climate solutionshere specifically on activism)

7. Complete this sentence “It’s important that we remember the (long) histories behind climate science, policy and activism because…” 

…a focus on day-to-day politics and debate can miss vital long-timescale realities that really shape what societies can, and can’t, do addressing grand challenges of all kinds – from global warming to immigration to poverty alleviation to public health.

8. What next? What are you working on at the moment that you’d like to give a shout out to

I’ve had several book ideas simmering for a long while, but one’s life gets shorter every day and it’s also time for me to get more of my music out in the world. Since the mid 1990s, songwriting and performing have been a vital second communication pathway for me. Through this year, I’m working on a couple of albums of original songs, building on my one album, “A Very Fine Line,” released way back in 2013. Readers can learn about my songwriting side and listen to heaps of music in this Sustain What post: When Reporting Gives Way to Singing.

9. Anything else you’d like to say?

Hope is an act more than a thing.

Categories
On This Day

On this Day February 16, 

Lord Ritchie-Calder’s essay “Mortgaging the Old Homestead” had been published in various outlets (Australia, US). Sports Illustrated readers expressed their thanks (and alarm) on this day 56 years ago.

February 16, 1970 – Sports Illustrated readers appreciate eco-warning

The UK Department of Energy was busy telling everyone they weren’t being complacent on this day 54 years ago. Reader, they were complacent.

February 16, 1972 – Dept of Env boss “we can’t be complacent”

With climate change at the top of Australians’ worry list (recently and briefly), the denialists in the Liberal Party decide to psychologise basic physics. Bravo!

February 16, 2007 – Liberals say climate is a “mass panic”

Failed Presidential aspirant John Kerry is diverting attention from the Obama administration’s uselessness (well, worse) by pointing the finger at other assholes.

February 16, 2014 – US climate envoy John Kerry denounces “shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues”

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
Activism

February 15, 2019 – school strikes…

Seven very long years ago, on this day, February 15, 2019,

“On Friday 15 February 2019, around 15,000 young people in towns and cities across the country walked out of school in protest at government inaction on the climate crisis. A month later, as part of a global strike, they did the same again – this time in more than three times their previous number.”

Whatever Happened to the UK Youth Climate Strikes? | Novara Media

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 411ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that we’ve been expecting children to redeem our skanky adult asses for decades (or centuries).

The specific context was that the IPCC’s report had come out. Greta Thunberg was holding her school strikes in Stockholm. “Change” was in the air.

What I think we can learn from this is that without organisation, these things go up like a rocket and come down like a stick. They’re like a fist when you open your palm.

But we forget, we “hope” and, well, rinse and repeat…

What happened next: You could do worse than read this and weep –

Whatever Happened to the UK Youth Climate Strikes? | Novara Media

See also 

School climate strikes: what next for the latest generation of activists?

Extinction Rebellion says ‘we quit’ – why radical eco-activism has a short shelf life

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: 

February 15, 1995 – Australian Financial Review editorial, gloating in the aftermath of the defeat of a small carbon tax proposal, groks Jevons Paradox

February 15, 2011 – Lenore Taylor’s truth bombs

February 15, 2013 – the carbon bubble, will it burst?