Month: March 2026

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

March 15,  2019 – Met Police film children at climate protest

Seven years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2019,

Police unlawfully spied on children as young as 10 taking part in a climate strike protest in London, documents have shown.

The previously unseen papers reveal the Metropolitan police were rebuked by the information commissioner’s office (ICO) for video surveillance of the March 2019 protest, which was attended by up to 10,000 children and young people.

Ruling the data-gathering unlawful, the watchdog said the force had failed to consider the privacy rights of the children at the protest, and had not considered their entitlement to added data protections in light of their age.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/05/met-police-illegally-filmed-children-as-young-as-10-at-climate-protest

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 the police are there to protect… the propertied classes and to subdue political dissent. There’s a lot of other window dressing stuff as well. The Met especially, as the biggest police force, leads the way in a lot of this. And ah, and had been harassing community groups, non violent groups, for a long time.

In 1968 the Special Demonstration Squad, aka spy cops. (Though spy cops is broader than that). It sent undercovers in for four or five year deployments not to gather evidence so much but as to demoralise, provoke etc. Which is absolutely what a thriving democracy, where the elites respect the rights of the peasants, behaves like.

The specific context was that in the 1990s – some of us are old enough to remember – it was still iffy for police evidence gatherers to be randomly and routinely gathering video footage at protests and demonstrations..  Now, well, normalised.

What I think we can learn from this is that in late 2018 the climate issue had burst onto the scene again, thanks to the very hot summer, though possibly not so hot by today’s standards, in the UK and Europe, the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees. Greta Thunberg had just started, but the main thing in the UK was Extinction Rebellion, co-founded by Roger Hallam and Gail Bradbrook, and they had announced a declaration of rebellion in Parliament Square. And then a month later, they had occupied five bridges in London.

And no one could know how long this wave of protest would last. So the Met were there busy filming everyone, which has various advantages.

One is you get a nice, fat database to crawl through, potentially disobedient people. 

Number two, it intimidates some people. 

Number three, it forces other people angry about it, to spend time and energy combating police overreach, rather than spending that time and energy on pushing corporations and governments to do more on climate change – so it’s a nice little sort of diversion of energy and resources. 

So it’s a win, win win for the cops, they might, at worst, get a rap on the knuckles from some legal busy-bodies, but they can largely ignore that. 

What happened next The police continued filming, of course, and now have facial recognition profiling technology thanks to various dodgy deals with people like Peter Thiel of Palantir.

The techno dystopia is being rolled out, and except for, I don’t know, Liberty and Netpol and a few other groups, everyone else is shrugging their shoulders and doing their best Bart Simpson, “What are you going to do?” imitation, myself included.

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: 

March 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

March 15, 2001 – “First, Direct Observational Evidence Of A Change In The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Between 1970 And 1997”

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

March 15, 2019 – New Zealand school strike launched, called off.

Categories
Australia

March 14,  2001 – the Australian Federal Government gifts taxpayer money to gas project

Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 14th, 2001,

The Commonwealth Government has offered Sydney Gas Company N/L research and development grant totalling $4.1 million for a coal gas project that will provide Australia with a major environmentally friendly and clean energy source close to its most populous area, Industry Minister Nick Minchin said today.

The project, funded under the R&D Start Program, will exploit the gas resources trapped in the coal beds in the Sydney Basin. It will result in a supply that could have significant economic benefits for the population base on the Eastern seaboard.

It will also generate export earnings if the technology used can be licensed to other sites around the world where trapped gas has to be extracted at great cost.

The $4.1 million grant offer was made by the Industry Research and Development Board and the Commonwealth Government’s business unit, AusIndustry, which administers the Program.

Senator Minchin said the project, when successful, would see significant amounts of clean coal bed methane gas fed directly into the NSW gas supply system.

“There will undoubtedly be major benefits flowing to the consumers because NSW has the largest potential market and at the moment there is no natural gas production in the State,” Senator Minchin said.

“The 1997 Australian Gas Association demand forecast for the eastern States of Australia shows that natural gas will be Australia’s fastest growing energy source. The coal bed methane project in the Sydney Basin will help Australia meet its domestic demand.

“The cleaner gas would also have an impact on the Kyoto Protocol commitments which seeks world-wide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Anon. 2001. $4.1m commonwealth grant offer for NSW R&D gas project. M2 Presswire.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that after pushing (with violence) the existing populations off the land, Australian settlers (or invaders, from another perspective) set about accumulating wealth from various activities – agriculture and then mining.  But this all requires extraction technologies and infrastructure, none of which is cheap. Individual companies aren’t gonna have deep enough pockets, or the appetite for risk. That’s where the state (i.e. the taxpayer) comes in…

The specific context was that the mining booms for export had really kicked in from the late 1960s.  And the state (taxpayer) had been there every step of the way.

What I think we can learn from this is that all the talk of “free markets” is just public relations and fairy tales for the hard-of-thinking.

What happened next  – the infrastructure keeps getting built, regardless of Labor or LNP in charge.  And the emissions keep 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 14, 1988 – Reagan mouths pieties about international scientific cooperation

March 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

 March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

 March 14, 2007 – Australian Treasury eyeroll about politicians on #climate, (scoop by Laura Tingle).

Categories
On This Day

On this Day March 13: UK disses the future (1989), Aussie climate advocates try (and fail) (1992), Bush breaks CO2 prime (2001), UNEP minds the Gap (2010 and ACTU talks clean coal (2007) 

In 1988 scientists had said a global 20% cut in emissions was needed by 2005. The UK government, on this day, said “yeah, nah”. 

March 13, 1989  – UK Energy Department shits all over everyone’s future by dissing Toronto Target

In Australia climate activists tried to get the Labor government to be less shit. They failed.

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).

Candidate Bush had made promises on the campaign trail. 25 years ago today Vice-President Bush, under President Cheney, broke those promises.

March 13, 2001 – Bush breaks election promise to regulate C02 emissions…

19 years ago, the unions (especially the coal-miners) were talking up “clean coal”, as was Labor leader Kevin Rudd. Happy times.

March 13, 2007 – ACTU talks up “clean coal”

Sixteen years ago, the United Nations Environment Program releases a report on the gap between the promises and what is happening/what is needed. They’re still producing these reports. The gap ain’t getting any smaller.

March 13, 2010 – first UNEP Emissions Gap report

Categories
United States of America

March 12, 1970 – After the Goldrush

On this day, March 12, 1970,

Slides that ✨ shine ✨

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 60s had happened. Everyone was questioning, well, everyone, a few of the young, were questioning the myths that they’d been brought up on. One of those myths was of painless economic progress that would not damage the planet. By the late 60s, air pollution was getting so bad that this was mocked, and also oil pollution, for example, well, the Torrey Canyon, but also the more consequential Santa Barbara oil spill of January, 1969. LINK

The specific context was that people like Neil Young were just tapping into that sense of menace and danger.

Songs on the album were inspired by a screenplay written by Dean Stockwell and Herb Bermann also titled After the Gold Rush. The screenplay’s plot involves an apocalyptic ecological disaster that washes away the Topanga Canyon hippie community. Stockwell, a lifelong friend of Young, was also part of the Topanga Canyon artist culture of the time. Mutual friend Dennis Hopper encouraged Stockwell to write his own screenplay in wake of Hopper’s success with Easy Rider. Stockwell recalls writing the script:

Dennis very strongly urged me to write a screenplay, and he would get it produced. I came back home to Topanga Canyon and wrote After The Gold Rush. Neil was living in Topanga then too, and a copy of it somehow got to him. He had had writer’s block for months, and his record company was after him. And after he read this screenplay, he wrote the After the Gold Rush album in three weeks.[10]

Young recalls coming in contact with the script in his 2012 memoir Waging Heavy Peace:

When I returned to Topanga, Dean Stockwell came by the house with a screenplay called After the Gold Rush. He had co-written it with Herb Bermann and wanted to know if I could do the music for it. I read the screenplay and kept it around for a while. I was writing a lot of songs at the time, and some of them seemed like they would fit right in with this story. The song “After the Gold Rush” was written to go along with the story’s main character as he carried the tree of life through Topanga Canyon to the ocean. One day Dean brought an executive from Universal Studios to my house to meet me. It looked like the project was going to happen, and I thought it would really be a good movie. It was a little off-the-wall and not a normal type of Hollywood story. I was really into it. Apparently the studio wasn’t, because nothing more ever happened.[11]

After the Gold Rush – Wikipedia

In his 2012 biography Young reportedly gave a different explanation of the song’s origin and meaning, describing the inspiration provided by a screenplay of the same name (never produced), which apocalyptically described the last days of California in a catastrophic flood. The screenplay and song’s title referred to what happened in California, a place that took shape due to the Gold Rush. Young eventually concluded that:

After The Gold Rush is an environmental song… I recognize in it now this thread that goes through a lotta my songs that’s this time-travel thing… When I look out the window, the first thing that comes to my mind is the way this place looked a hundred years ago.[4]

After the Gold Rush (song) – Wikipedia

What I think we can learn from this is that this song is an absolute banger. I listen to it all the time

What happened next  Neil Young is still around!

Neil Young – Wikipedia

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: 

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

 March 12, 1984 – A Conservative MP worries about carbon dioxide build-up 

March 12, 2023 – the opera ain’t over, but the fat lady is warming up

Categories
Australia

March 11, 2001 – Don Burke adverts

Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 11th, 2001,

The Federal Government is spending $3.9 million on an advertising campaign on greenhouse gases featuring celebrity gardener Don Burke, two months after criticism of its $3.6 million ad campaign on the Natural Heritage Trust.

In the ads, on prime-time television and in newspapers, Burke says: “I love greenhouses. Wouldn’t want to live in one, though … and that’s why the Commonwealth Government is doing something about it.”

“They’re investing $200 million a year to lower greenhouse gases. They’re working with over 300 major companies, helping them to clean up their act.”

He goes on to introduce 10 ways Australians can make a difference including turning off the TV at the power point, instead of using the remote, washing clothes in cold water and taking shorter showers.

The Opposition’s environment spokesman, Senator Nick Bolkus, said yesterday the ad campaign was an “outrageous abuse of taxpayers’ money”.

 … The Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office confirmed the full cost of the advertising campaign was $3.9 million, with the ads to run for six weeks.   

2001 Clennell, A. 2001. Pitched Battle Over Don Burke Ads. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 March, p.5.

AND

CELEBRITY green thumb Don Burke yesterday defended his decision to promote the Federal Government’s anti-greenhouse gas policy on television, saying he was no apologist for the Liberals.

The Opposition and the Australian Democrats voiced concern over Mr Burke’s promotion of the Government’s approach to greenhouse problems in a $3.9 million print and broadcast campaign.

But Mr Burke, who did the job free of charge, praised the Government for making a start and said he would also support similar Labor efforts.

“I knew in doing this … the Opposition would come back with various statements. As I say, I’m not an apologist for the Liberal Party.”

Daily Telegraph, March 14, 2001 p20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Liberal Party had gone into the 1990 federal election with a more ambitious carbon dioxide emissions reduction target than the governing Labor party, but this had not gotten them over the line; they very narrowly lost, and felt that they had been betrayed by green groups, especially the Australian Conservation Foundation. This exacerbated pre-existing suspicions and antipathy to all things environmental. In 1996 the Liberals had come back to power, and new Prime Minister John Howard had made it pretty clear that he had contempt for the issue of climate change and those pushing it. I could go on for days…. 

The specific context was  that thanks to the Millennium drought and so forth, concerns about climate change were growing. And so as an attempt at perception management, Howard had used taxpayer money to do an advertising campaign fronted by then popular TV personality Don Burke, who did gardening shows. 

What I think we can learn from this is that even assholes, or especially assholes, will use public funds to try and fool the public. It’s like that cartoon of the two fat men at the table, and one of them cuts off the tail of the dog nearby and feeds the dog its own tail. It’s actually worse than that, of course. Anyway…

What happened next the Don Burke controversy blew up because Labor and the Democrats (the Democrats still a thing) were not at all happy, and launched parliamentary investigations and so on. The Greens were just becoming a thing by then. 

Burke himself, well, here’s Wikipedia:

He has been an outspoken critic of numerous environmental advocacy groups. From July 2005 to late 2008,[3] Burke was the Chair of the climate-change-denying Australian Environment Foundation.[4]

then revealed to be. Well…

An investigation started when journalist Tracey Spicer announced on Twitter that she was investigating the sexual harassment by powerful men in the Australian entertainment industry. Spicer said, “One name kept recurring – Don Burke”.[8][9] On 26 November 2017, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Sydney Morning Herald published a joint investigative piece containing claims that Burke had sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and bullied women throughout his television career. The report quotes alleged female victims, as well as both female and male witnesses, including David Leckie—the former head of the Nine Network, on which Burke’s programs aired—comparing Burke to American producer Harvey Weinstein.[8] Kate McClymont, Lorna Knowles, Tracey Spicer and Alison Branley received a Walkley Award for their investigation.[10]

Other former Channel Nine executives went “on the record” to comment on the allegations.

Sam Chisholm said, “Don Burke was a disgrace because of his behaviour internally and externally. This precluded him from ever becoming a major star.”[11]

Peter Meakin said, “There was gossip about inappropriate language and he was incredibly demanding. If someone fell short of the mark, he would excoriate them. He was unforgiving.”[11]

In response to the allegations, Burke released a lengthy statement which said he was “deeply hurt and outraged at the false and defamatory claims” and suggested the “baseless” claims were from former employees who “bear grudges against me”. Burke also stated that he has had a “life-long opposition to sexism and misogyny”.[11]

Burke claimed to have self-diagnosed Asperger’s syndrome and, in a media interview[12] following revelations about his alleged misconduct, said that these “genetic failings” were to blame for some of his conduct. In response, Autism Awareness Australia stated that Burke’s claim was “beyond appalling” and “gobsmacking”.[13]

In the following days, many celebrities came forward to recount their observations of Burke’s sexist and offensive behaviour, including Susie O’Neill,[14] Kerri-Anne Kennerley,[15] Di Morrissey, Debra Byrne, Tottie Goldsmith, Amity Dry and Mike Carlton.[16]

Following the interview on A Current Affair,[17] one of the women sued Burke for defamation on the grounds that he said she had lied about the sexual harassment allegation and that she made the false allegation as part of a “witch hunt” during the interview. She lost the case on the grounds that Justice David Mossop did not find Burke’s denial in the interview was credible, so viewers would not conclude that she was a liar or part of a witch hunt, and thus was not defamed.[18][19]

And the emissions kept climbing despite all the advertising campaign bullshit, Howard tried again in 2007 with “climate clever” adverts. But by then, he was toast. 

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: 

March 11, 1959 – Warmer Arctic Raising World’s Sea Level…

March 11, 1969 – NASA explains need to monitor C02 build-up to politicians

March 11, 1989 – warm words at The Hague, where the climate criminals should be sent…

March 11, 2008 – Australia’s ratification of Kyoto Protocol comes into effect

Categories
On This Day

On This Day – March 10: Congressional thinking (1988), stupid speech by stupid old powerful man (2010), RIP Sherry Rowland (2012), Florida governor versus reality (2015) 

With the climate issue clearly about to break through, some congressional staffers have a think, organised by some big green campaigning outfits.

March 10, 1988 – Congressional staff (go on a) retreat on Climate

If you want to control, or at least confuse and disinform, then you must control the state broadcaster. So, you put loyal stupid people in powerful positions. They then give stupid speeches. And voila.

March 10, 2010 – ABC chairman gives stupid speech to staff

A great scientist and brave man, who faced prolonged interference in his work because he was right and industry didn’t like it. 

March 10, 2012- RIP Sherry Rowland

When you are six years old or so, you learn that closing your eyes doesn’t mean other people can’t see you – that there is an actual reality. Republican governors get to be five or so their whole wretched lives…

 March 10, 2015 – Florida governor denies banning words “climate change”

Categories
Cultural responses Interviews

Interview with Crawford Kilian, author of “Icequake”

Crawford Killian, author of the 1979 weather-apocalypse novel Icequake, kindly answers some questions. You can find him here – crof@bsky.social 

Crawford Killian

1. A bit about who you are – where you grew up, education etc

I was born in New York City but grew up in North Hollywood, California until 1950. The family moved to Mexico City so my TV-engineer father could put a TV station (Televicentro) on the air. Four years later we were back in the States and I went through high school in Santa Monica. Then an undistinguished four years at Columbia, return to LA, two years in the US Army—and then, after a couple of dull jobs, my wife and I moved to Vancouver to get the hell away from the Vietnam War. I stumbled into college teaching, loved it, got my MA, and taught for 41 years before retiring in 2008.

2. Do you remember when/how you first heard that human activity might alter the planet’s climate, and what you thought (of course, in the 60s it was maybe dust, or carbon dioxide, warming/cooling)

Theories abounded in the 1960s and 1970s, and I ran across one theory circa 1974 from an Australian scientist who argued that the West Antarctic ice sheet’s own weight was melting its base and the lubricating effect could collapse the ice sheet into the Southern Ocean—where it would reflect enough sunshine back into space to trigger a new ice age. Yeah, I know. You had to be there. 

3. How did you come to write Icequake?  How long did it take?

I put aside the SF novel I’d been working on for years, did a lot of research, and wrote two drafts of Icequake. A lot of it got written in longhand during endless faculty association meetings. All told, it must have taken about three years. The second draft clicked—published in Canada, Commonwealth rights sold to Futura, a UK publisher, US rights to Bantam, who also wanted a sequel. That was Tsunami, very much the runt of my litter.

4.  How was it received?

Futura put a lot of effort into publicizing Icequake, and for a few dizzy weeks in the summer of 1980 it was outselling The Thorn Birds. It didn’t get much critical attention in North America, and Bantam didn’t put a real effort into it, but it did all right. A number of people who’d worked in the Antarctic thought it was pretty accurate, which I was very relieved to hear.

5.  Have you re-read it since?

I re-read it a year or two ago, and thought it held together pretty well. Of course I’d accelerated the collapse into a matter of weeks, not decades, but it still seemed plausible. Well, except for the concurrent collapse of the ozone layer and the earth’s magnetic field! I’d set the story in the near future of 1985, so of course much of the technology is really dated…not to mention the sociology. I had a couple of women working at New Shackleton Station, great rarities in those days, but not so much in the present.

6.  What have you been doing, these last almost-fifty years since it was published.

I’ve had a very pleasant half-century, thanks! As a full-time college teacher I could pay the mortgage while also writing SF and fantasy novels (and nonfiction books, and writing a weekly column on education for a Vancouver daily paper, the Province). I was able to teach a course in writing fiction based on my own experience, and several of my students went on to publish their own novels. I had fun exploring ideas, but none of my later novels made the kind of money that Icequake did. In the mid-1990s I’d tried to break out of genre, but the market was changing. After a couple of unpublishable novels I packed it in. No regrets—I was lucky to break in when I did. Since then I’ve written hundreds of articles on all kinds of subjects—mostly for the Vancouver online magazine The Tyee (https://thetyee.ca/Bios/Crawford_Kilian/ ). A lot of those articles are on climate change.

7. Complete this sentence.  “A knowledge of just how long we’ve known about the problem of carbon dioxide build-up gives us…” (you can say “nothing” or “perspective” or whatever!!) …gives us confirmation that we are very, very slow learners.

8. Anything else you’d like to say.

There really was a bit of debate in the 1970s about the trend of the climate, and I then had no particular opinion one way or the other. But by the early 80s it was clear we really were warming up, and I made passing reference to it in one or two of my later novels. Icequake went out of print long ago (though it’s still available as an e-book. But the science keeps confirming the book’s basic idea—that the Antarctic ice sheets, however vast they may seem, are transient conditions and subject to change.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 9, 2000 – Report on emissions trading

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 9th, 2000,

“On March 9 a report on emissions trading by Allen Consulting was released to the Victorian Government. Modelling various scenarios but excluding the effect of international trading, the report put the cost on carbon in the range of $42 to $148 a tonne.

Analysts point out that an international carbon market is inevitable, and that this will considerably reduce the price of carbon. Let’s hope it does. The Allen report also predicted percentage point declines in national GDP and employment.

Hordern, N. 2000. Greenhouse gas and the high price of hot air. The Australian Financial Review, 29 March, p.18. 

AND

MELBOURNE, March 10, AAP – A compulsory system of trading of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia would be too expensive, according to a report prepared for the Victorian government.

The report on greenhouse emissions trading by The Allen Consulting Group said a domestic permits scheme would also be too complex.

However, the report recommended that Australia participate in an international trading system when an agreed model becomes operational.

“On balance, we do not support the imposition of a mandatory domestic emissions trading system in Australia,” the report said.

“The costs of permits under such a system may well be higher than those incurred later under an international system and could, therefore, lead to an unnecessarily high adjustment burden.”

Anon. 2000. Greenhouse emission trading plan too expensive – Aust report.  Australian Associated Press, 10 March,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide had been around for a long time. There was even a mention of it in 1970 in a major Australian newspaper. But it really only kicked into high gear in 1988-89, Two attempts at introducing a carbon tax had been defeated, in 1990-91 and then, more dramatically, in 1994-95

Then attention had switched to the idea of emissions trading. And of course, the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed but not ratified – and it was still a hope that Australia would ratify it at this stage – was allegedly going to enable international carbon trading. 

The specific context was … Allen consulting…. Well, the fact that it’s one of Geoff Allen’s babies should tell you plenty.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been dreaming up policy “solutions” to climate change, which don’t tackle the need for urgent, steep reductions, but allow people to feel that they are doing something, and allow those people and other people to get rich from All the consultancy fees, legal fees, etc. 

What happened next. Well, after being gifted the 2000 presidential election by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, in March 2001, George W Bush followed instructions from the actual president, Dick Cheney and pulled the US out of negotiating around the Kyoto Protocol, In June of 2002 John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, did the same.

Eventually an emissions trading scheme came into force in Australia, thanks to the skill of Julia Gillard and her need to negotiate with Greens and Independents, but that was swiftly destroyed by the wrecking-ball liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 9, 1998 – First head of Australian Greenhouse Office announced – (Or “Infamous long AGO”)

 March 9, 2005- Albanese says “ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds.” #auspol

March 9, 2009 – Scientist tries to separate fact from denialist fiction

March 9, 2009 – Carbon price being weakened by lobbying…

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 8, 2007 – Great Global Warming Swindle 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 8th, 2007,

Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast on Channel 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that climate change had come alive as an issue in the summer of 2006 especially in the UK, thanks to various factors, including “Camp to Climate Action,” (which I was involved in), and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth. Therefore the backlash would have to begin. 

The specific context was that the idiots who made the documentary had form. They had produced something in the late 90s called Against Nature that said, in effect, “Hitler was vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are at least Nazi-adjacent.” 

What I think we can learn from this is that mud and shit will be flung by opponents of action towards stopping us killing ourselves more quickly than we otherwise might. This is especially the case if “stopping our killing ourselves quickly” involves cutting into the profits of rich white people and the so-called liberties of rich white people. It’s not just the rich, of course, I’m being tabloid here. 

What happened next

 The Swindle enabled middle class people who didn’t want to take a stand and change anything to say “Oh, well, there’s still doubt. Scientists are still not sure.” Blah, blah, blah. 

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice? 

March 8, 1971 – The Future cancelled for lack of interest…

March 8, 1978 – Minister for Science speaks proudly of Australia’s carbon dioxide monitoring…

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 7, 1980 – Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Forty six years ago, on this day, March 7th, 1980,

Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Report of a Workshop, San Diego, California, March 7-9, 1980 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822007443104&seq=7

and 

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Carbon_Balance_in_Northern_Ecosystems_an/cb0JAQAAIAAJ?hl=en

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was by about 1976-77 especially people within the senior levels of the United States science establishment – I’m thinking specifically of Alvin Weinberg, but it’s not just him – were really thinking hard about climate change from carbon dioxide build-up. So perhaps one of the key documents that I need to think about more is the August 1976 report from Oak Ridge. 

Anyway, there had been the Miami Beach meeting in 1977 and now more and more conferences and meetings, scientific workshops, all in the hope that the politicians could be persuaded to take it all seriously. And at this point, of course, the idea of synfuels were still in the mix as a response to the second oil shock. 

The specific context was that the first world climate conference had happened, and there was money from the Department of Energy for these sorts of workshops.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough in 1980 to be taking action (as per the CO2 Newsletter).

What happened next. More meetings. The crucial event was the election of Ronald Reagan that basically put the kibosh on all the effort, or most of the political policy efforts within the US.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

March 7, 1991 – Australian Labor Party bragging about its green credentials…

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.