Categories
Australia Recycling

June 22, 1992 – Keating has to pretend to give a damn

Thirty four years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 

For the first time since becoming Prime Minister, Mr Keating donned a green mantle yesterday at the launching of the Government’s waste-minimisation and recycling strategy.

Mr Keating made big claims for the strategy – an information campaign aimed at halving the amount of waste going to landfill by 2000.

Garran, R. 1992. Recycling drive brings out the green in Keating. Australian Financial Review, June 23.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that Australia’s political elites had had ample warnings about CO2 build up. In 1988 they asked for a ‘what can we do?’ report. In 1989 there were debates within the federal government, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke about what to do. The Environment Minister Graham Richardson had suggested that Australia adopt the so-called Toronto target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005. Richardson lost that fight, as he admitted at the time, because treasurer Paul Keating resisted vehemently. Keating also managed other successes in his fight against green issues. And in late 1991 he had succeeded in toppling a tired, worn out Bob Hawke and as leader of the Labor Party, and then Keating became Prime Minister. This spelt the end of the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process as anything approaching viable, Keating kicked it into committees where it was then killed off. 

The specific context was that Keating also needed some way of pretending to give a shit about the environment, especially as he had not gone to the Rio Earth Summit, the only OECD leader not to. He had sent his environment minister, Ros Kelly.

And so what is the most meaningless, ineffectual, but somehow has a warm glow, topic that even a fierce neoliberal like Keating can get behind? Why it’s recycling, motherhood, apple pie and emptiness. And so it came to pass. 

What I think we can learn is this: if ever you see a politician, especially one noted for his or her hostility to environment action in a public relations bind, you will then see them standing smiling at a recycling centre with a hard hat and a high-vis in order to allay the concerns of people on their own side who yeah anyway…

Somebody could write something about recycling and CCS as forms of bargaining, self-soothing…

What happened next: Keating won the 1993 Federal election against all expectations. When a carbon tax proposal was in front of his cabinet, he was either neutral or hostile. Keating is still alive: it’s not too late to get him to the Hague. 

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise” – All Our Yesterdays

June 22, 1978 – ETSU report about Human Activity and Carbon Dioxide – All Our Yesterdays

June 22, 1980 – G7 meeting in Venice – All Our Yesterdays

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse) – All Our Yesterdays

June 22, 1990 – ALP already undermining green agenda – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 21, 1986 – The Science Show does climate (again)

Forty years ago, on this day, June 21st, 

The Science Show [Episode 510] – CSIRO Book Launch; Greenhouse Effect; International Inventor’s Awards; Expo ’86; Creation Science in the US; Positron Tomography; Mental Health Treatment in Belgium

21 Jun 1986 – 21 Jun 1986

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 347ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that ABC Radio had first mentioned carbon dioxide build up as a potential problem in September 1969 –  the science unit had been aware of all of this stuff. Then in August 1975 the very first episode of the Science Show, the ABC radio programme hosted by Robyn Williams, had a guest Peter Ritchie Calder, the British science journalist and thinker. And what did they talk about? They talked about carbon dioxide build up dating back to a 1961 United Nations conference.

The Science Show had continued to run articles or pieces segments about CO2 build up from then onwards.  

October 25, 1980 – Australian radio’s The Science Show talks about climate change…

The specific context was that in 1985 there had been a scientific meeting in Villach in Austria. And from that various activities had followed, especially in the United States and Australia, with scientists trying to warn politicians that the question of carbon dioxide build-up into the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, (primarily, not exclusively)  could no longer be ignored or kicked into the long grass. And so at this time, the Australian Environment Council was about to hear from Brian Tucker, boss of the division of Atmospheric Physics at the CSIRO about CO2 build-up. 

What I think we can learn is this: it’s now 40 years since Australia’s political elites were forced to confront a reality that a few of them see, for example, this National Party senator in 1981 – had been aware of for longer. Forty years. People have been born, had children, and in some cases, those children have had children in that time. Here we are. 

What happened next: in 1987 the Greenhouse Project, a joint effort by the CSIRO Department of Atmospheric Physics and the Commission for the Future was launched. And in 1988 the issue exploded onto the public attention. There were lots of warm words, but not so much action because that would be costly and would not fit with what we were already doing. We are habitual creatures, especially when those habits are defended with political, economic, cultural and military force.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

October 12, 1986 – Ockham’s Razor and the Greenhouse Effect (ABC radio programme)

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 21, 1954 – Manchester Evening News explains climate change

June 21, 1958 – Washington Post reports ‘world turning into a ‘greenhouse’

June 21, 1964 – Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner murdered – 

June 21, 1994 – “National Greenhouse Advisory Panel” established. Hilarity ensues.

June 21, 2007 – ABC unleashes “Carbon Cops” on the world. ACAB – All Climate Activists Barf… 

Categories
Activism Australia

June 20, 1999 – Joint press release by TWS, ACF and Greenpeace

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, June 20th, 

The Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation & Greenpeace 1999, 82 Reasons Why the New Environment Legislation is Bad for the Environment, joint media release by the Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace, 20 June, 1999.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that between 1988 and sort of 1991 there had been a huge amount of media attention on climate change as an issue. Greenpeace, The Wilderness Society and Australian Conservation Foundation, as the three biggest environment groups had been frenemies, had cooperated, collaborated and competed over various issues, all of course, hoping to get the most prestige, membership dues, etc.

That’s normal, but occasionally they would come together to try and amplify their voices. And you see this now with this event in 1999, presumably around the Howard government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EBPC) Bill.

The specific context was that the Howard Government is trying to minimise any environmental commitments.

What I think we can learn is this: is that environment groups are like anything anyone else, they’ll compete and collaborate. 

What happened next: Howard continued to be an absolute twunt. If only he’d been booted out in 2001 there wouldn’t have been quite as much damage done to the Australian policy. But here we are. Australia is fucked.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax 

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House

June 20, 1995 – Shell raises the white flag in Brent Spar battle 

June 20, 1997 – Australia versus the world on climate change

June 20, 2005 – RIP Charles Keeling

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

June 19, 2012 – Abbott having to defend renewables. Oh the hilarity.

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 19th, 2012,

TENSIONS have erupted in the Coalition over a key climate change policy less than two weeks before the introduction of the carbon tax from July 1.

Tony Abbott was yesterday forced to stare down a backbench challenge to the party’s support for the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target as senior backbenchers blamed it for adding to electricity prices amid a backlash over last week’s 18 per cent price increases in NSW and South Australia.

Maher, S. 2012. Abbott forced to quell backbench climate rift. The Australian, 20 June, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that the Liberal Party had gone into the 1990 federal election with a stronger emissions reduction target than labour, but had lost that election very narrowly and felt betrayed by big green organisations and green voters generally, and then they become very actively hostile to all things environmental, and especially the problem of carbon dioxide build up. 

Tony Abbott had become leader of the Liberals in December, or late November, 2009 having given a speech where he said that the science of climate change was absolute crap. He had successfully demolished Kevin Rudd, (well, Rudd had helped demolish himself, to be fair) and also made endless attacks on Rudd’s successor as Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Abbott was basically an unguided missile, A WRECKING BALL, a very limited human being, 

The specific context was that by this point, he had lost the fight to prevent a great big tax on everything i.e., Gillard’s emissions trading scheme; and while he was still Leader of the Opposition, there were ructions, and some of his back benchers were getting high on their own supply and were blocking stuff that Abbott found it useful not to have blocked.

What I think we can learn is this: that when you unleash demons, they don’t always do what you want.

What happened next: Abbott continued to be an effective leader of the opposition. I don’t mean that as a compliment, necessarily. And became prime minister in 2013 thanks to the Murdoch press having demonised Julia Gillard to an astonishing degree and Abbott was then toppled by his own party, with the most, perhaps the most hilarious moment being when a third of his party voted for an empty chair because, rather than him as leader.

He is now back, as President of the Liberals, which will doubtless have the young, and especially the young women, flocking to join the Libs.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

https://theconversation.com/who-tilts-at-windmills-explaining-hostility-to-renewables-77762

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 19, 1989 – George Brown speech to Student Pugwash – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood” – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Categories
Australia

June 19, 1972 – Advertiser letter about fossil fuel impacts…

Fifty four years ago, on this day, June 19th, 1972, a letter in the Adelaide Advertiser about Concorde ends thus –

“The effects on the ozone layer caused by the Concorde or other high altitude fliers are, it seems from tests, very minor compared to those caused by our burning of fossil fuels at the surface, such as the car and ordinary aircraft.


Reg. T. Fisk

Glenelg

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was in the late 1960s and into the early 1970s there was a huge upsurge in concern about environmental issues (local, but also global).

The specific context was that Concorde and other supersonic transports were being campaigned against by various ‘eco’groups for various reasons, including the potential damage to the ozone layer. This letter is responding to them in a fairly typical style (I may bother to unpick it at some point). The mention of fossil fuels is mildly interesting….

What I think we can learn is this: in the early 1970s, we knew enough to be worried…

What happened next: The wave of eco-concern faded (though some brave and diligent people tried to keep the flame alive – shout out to the Environment Information Centre people, on Rundle Street).

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

September 10, 1973- Ozone concerns on display in Kyoto…

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 19, 1989 – George Brown speech to Student Pugwash – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood” – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Categories
Australia Predatory delay Renewable energy

June 18, 2004 – Australian government lobbied about renewables. Again

Twenty two years ago, on this day, June 18th, 2004.  

Environmentalists today urged the government to do more to develop renewable energy technologies, amid news that Australia had been branded the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluter.

Green groups and industry associations held a crisis meeting in Canberra to develop an urgent action plan for the environment ahead of the federal election.

 AAP, 2004. Australia branded worst greenhouse polluter. Sydney Morning Herald, 18 June.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245104076.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that from the 1950s Australia had had some renewables industries around solar, hot water heating and some very basic wind turbines, and that with appropriate support and funding that could have exploded, but of course, it would then have been a competitor to the coal lobby and to big centralised outfits like ETSA and so on.

And so the CSIRO funding got cut. (See Mark Diesendorf on this).

In 1994-95 there had been a proposal for a carbon tax at a federal level in Australia, and there would have been hypothecated funding available for renewable energy. The carbon tax was defeated, and the money therefore never arrived. And in 1997, ahead of the Kyoto conference, Prime Minister John Howard had had to make empty promises about a mandatory renewable energy target for Australia. He had, then, having got what he wanted at Kyoto, deliberately slow-walked this and muddied the waters until it all became largely futile. You can read about it in Clive Hamilton’s Running from the Storm. 

The specific context was that in 2003 Howard had gathered his mates together, the Low Emissions Technologies Advisory Group and demanded their help in squashing renewables, though this didn’t emerge until late 2004. Meanwhile, in the lead up to the 2004 energy white paper, which was a gift to the fossil fuel lobby, we see this sort of lobbying trying to get support for renewables. 

What I think we can learn is this: the good guys lose. Everybody knows the war is over and that John Howard is a fucking criminal. That’s I mean, that’s it, really, that’s the post. 

What happened next: emissions kept climbing.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 18, 1972 – Patrick White becomes a reluctant greenie activist

June 18, 1976- UK Meteorological Office explains things to Cabinet Office

June 18, 1984- OECD holds conference on “environment and economics”

 June 18, 2013 – Feeble ’Wind Fraud’ rally in Canberra

June 18, 2015 – Power station petition – All Our Yesterdays

June 18, 2008 – Carbon Capture and Storage is going to save Australia. Oh yes. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial

June 17, 2007 – “Carbon Sense” to the world

Nineteen years ago, on this day, June 17th, 2007, 

“Carbon Sense Coalition is a voluntary group of people concerned about the extent to which carbon is wrongly vilified in Western societies, particularly in government, the media, and in business circles. We aim to restore balance and reason to the carbon debate, and to explain and defend the key role of carbon in production of most of our energy for heat, light, and transportation, and all of our food.”

June 17th, 2007 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was from the late 1980s in Australia and elsewhere, and the United States especially, there was an active – what’s the word phrase I’m looking for,? – fucking stupid climate denial movement, or bunch of individuals occasionally coalescing as a “movement” in the Australian context that would be people like John Daly with his demented book the Greenhouse Trap. Daly died in 2004 and also outfits like the so called Lavoisier group. 

The specific context was that the carbon dioxide build up issue had been actively suppressed by John Howard as Prime Minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

But this had become impossible for Howard to do in late 2006; the issue just burst onto the scene again thanks to the endless, or seemingly endless, Millennium drought, Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth, ratification of Kyoto Protocol, leading to new UN negotiations, social movement activism like Climate Camp in the United Kingdom and so forth. Then you had new Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, having toppled Kim Beasley, using the climate issue as a stick to beat John Howard with, especially over ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had famously not done.

Therefore it was clear that the climate issue would be live for another year or two, at least (in the end, it was until 2011). 

What I think we can learn is this: So here you have a bunch of intellectual inadequates giving themselves the title ‘carbon sense’, which is, of course, a play on common sense. And this invocation of common sense tells you a lot in the same way that it was common sense, that the world was flat, that women shouldn’t vote, that black people should be slaves, that blood letting made you stronger, etc, etc, that kind of common sense. 

What happened next: I am sure they are still around. Gaia help us all.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 17, 1957 – Guy Callendar writes more truth bombs – “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”

June 17, 1994 – Moron versus physics. Sorry, “Moran” – All Our Yesterdays

June 17, 2009 – Blistering speech about how “The Climate Nightmare is Upon Us” by Christine Milne – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Fafocene

“The Fafocene diaries”? or “Letters from the Fafocene”? Or…

I didn’t invent the term Fafocene – or rather, I did, but I was not the first person to do so. However, it seems like I am the first to popularise it.

Fafocene?” You ask. Well, there’s a graphic for that.

And now I wonder if it might not be worth exploring this in more depth. – Explore its causes, signs and symptoms, the prognosis. If I had the time/expertise/money it would be a podcast, a la Heather Cox Richardson. But I don’t, so, there’s that.

A few years ago, on another site, I did ‘doom diaries‘ for a month, so this could be a kind of sequel to that…

Mind you, what was that warning of Freddie Nietzsche’s about staring into the abyss?

Categories
Interviews

“I wanted to write the book because I believed the threat of global warming was real” – interview with Harold Bernard, author of 1980 book ‘The Greenhouse Effect’

In 1980 a book called The Greenhouse Effect was published. Its author, Buzz Bernard, kindly agreed to an email interview…

Buzz Bernard

A bit about where you were born, grew up, were educated

I was born in Eugene, Oregon; grew up in Portland, Oregon; and was educated at the University of Washington (Seattle)

What drew you to the Air Force? What did you do in your service?

The draft was still in effect when I entered college. My dad said, “You’re gonna have to serve in the military, so you might as well do it as an officer.” Thus, I joined the AF ROTC and was commissioned as a second lieutenant. I was hoping the AF might send me on to get a Master’s Degree in Atmospheric Science, but something called Vietnam came along. So much for furthering my education.

In the air force I mainly supported flying/combat operations. I ended my career (primarily in the reserve) as Deputy Director of Weather (Reserve), Air Combat Command.

When and how did your involvement in meteorology come about?

I always (at least since I was about 8 or 9 years old) knew I wanted to be a “weatherman.” I wanted to know what made it cold or hot, why sometimes we got snowstorms instead of rainstorms, what caused big windstorms, etc. There wasn’t any one big event that triggered my curiosity (like with many of my fellow meteorologists), I was just interested in weather.

When and how did you first hear about carbon dioxide build-up as a potential problem? 

I first heard about atmospheric carbon dioxide when I went on a research project sponsored by the Univ of Washington in the Alaskan arctic in the summer of 1962. My job was to drive an old WWII weapons carrier out to a hut at the literal  end of Point Barrow and record CO2 measurements. “Man, is this boring,” I thought. 

In the late 1970s, I became friends with an MIT professor emeritus who worked at the research firm I was working at (as a civilian) in Massachusetts. He’d been involved in linking sunspot cycles to climate cycles. I found that fascinating and wrote a trade book (WEATHER WATCH) about it. I asked the professor about the threat of warming from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. He brushed it off saying, “Don’t worry about it.” Well, I wasn’t worried about it, but wanted to find out more. So I began reading everything I could find about the subject, and drew my own conclusions as a layman. I decided that there was a real threat from anthropogenic warming caused by CO2. Not immediately, but maybe by the turn of the century. Thus came the book THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, which was what global warming or climate change was called back then.

I grew even more convinced of the threat of man-caused global warming through the 1980s and ended up writing another trade book about it that came out in 1993, GLOBAL WARMING UNCHECKED. By then, the threat of anthropogenic global warming was becoming more public, controversial, and politicized. Even many (most?) operational meteorologists (forecasters) didn’t believe in it, or maybe just wanted to ignore it. I was told by one forecaster who owned a big commercial firm that I was a charlatan. (I don’t think he had a clue how little money most authors really make.) When I joined a commercial forecasting operation a few years later, I was told by a friend to keep my mouth shut about having written books that dealt with global warming. No one at the company believed in it. Of course, the company has done a one-eighty since then and now can’t talk about it enough.

The book itself, how did it come about—were you commissioned or did you pitch it?

I was not commissioned. I wanted to write the book because I believed the threat of global warming was real. I had an agent by then because of WEATHER WATCH, and the agent was able to get a contract for the book with a subsidiary of a major publisher.

Anything you recall about the writing process—easy, hard, quicker or longer than expected, surprises on the way? (this is all fifty years ago, I know!)

Looking back, it was hard. There were no word processors then. I used a typewriter. Cut and paste was literal. Q&A with researchers was via snail mail not email. What little research I did was done in libraries, not on the internet. I hated doing the indexes at the end of books. I think that’s one reason I ultimately turned to writing fiction.

Were you happy with it?

Yes. Of course, I think any time you complete a book, you’re happy with it. In truth, I don’t think many of my friends had any idea what I was writing about. One of my bosses asked me, in all seriousness, “Do you have a greenhouse at your home?”He obviously hadn’t read the book yet.

How was the book received?

It wasn’t any big deal. I was not an author (or researcher) that anybody knew. There was no Amazon back then where you could track book sales or read reviews by customers.

Any further work you did on the Greenhouse Effect/thoughts on where we are now at?

As I mentioned earlier, I did write a follow-up book called GLOBAL WARMING UNCHECKED. From here on out, however, I’ll let the climate change experts/researchers write about the subject. I still follow global warming/climate change, and science has proven the early warnings were correct. People still occasionally ask me if I “believe” in global warming, as if the science were unsettled. I respond, “Do you believe in sunrise and sunset?”

Thoughts? Major challenges still remain in front of us. Heat waves, droughts, major floods, superstorms.

Me? I’m just gonna kick back and enjoy writing my WWII historical fiction series. I still have to do a lot of research, but it’s a lot more fun, I get more “attaboys,” and earn more money.

Which of your WW2 books should people start with and why?

It really doesn’t matter. They are all standalone novels, although WHEN HEROES FLEW: ROOF OF THE WORLD and WHEN HEROES FLEW: WHERE THE DAWN COMES UP LIKE THUNDER are connected. Readers in the UK might want to start with WHEN HEROES FLEW: BLACK THURSDAY or FIVE DAYS IN JUNE (which comes out in October), since both are set largely in and around London.

Which of them are you proudest of and why?

I would say the first novel of the series which was titled simply WHEN HEROES FLEW. I wasn’t thinking of a series then. But the novel sold well, got great reviews, and eventually drew some interest from a screenwriter, so I was off and running.

Anything else you’d like to say?

Thanks for this opportunity to help me recall how I got started in this crazy business of commercial writing. When I was younger, I was a meteorologist who wrote a few books. Now I’m a novelist who retains a keen interest in meteorology and climate change, but those subjects are no longer my profession They are hobbies. I think I have a wonderful life.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

June 16, 2012 – Lenore Taylor versus CCS

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 16th, 2012, Australian journalist Lenore Taylor, took stock of CCS in an article called “Climate strategy up in smoke.”

IT WAS the technology that was going to help underpin the nation’s climate change strategy. In 2009, the then prime minister, Kevin Rudd, pledged to ”lead the world” in carbon capture and storage technology, which traps carbon dioxide emissions, permanently storing them deep underground. 

 Taylor, L. (2012) Climate strategy up in smoke. Sydney Morning Herald June 16th

http://www.smh.com.au/national/climate-strategy-up-in-smoke-20120615-20f7i.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that in Australia, CCS had first popped up in the late 1990s in the Geodisc programme, and then a couple of years later, post Kyoto, in the efforts of the Prime Minister’s Science and Industry Council, then chaired by Robin Batterham, who was part time and the rest of its time, who was the chief technology officer of Rio Tinto. And then from 2004 onwards, there had been a series of announcements and conferences and legislation about CCS, the Queensland Government had pushed for it as well under Premier Peter Beattie. Also you’d had Kevin Rudd in 2007 Eight, using CCS as a way of keeping coal miners on side while still attracting liberals, small l liberal voters and those concerned about the environment, thus CCS performed the function of squaring the circle.

The specific context was that the physics didn’t add up, the money didn’t add up, and it all fell over in late 2010 and here we see Lenore Taylor, who had been covering climate since the early 1990s, writing about how it all fell over.

What I think we can learn is this: fantasy eventually meets reality and there’ll be a smart somebody there to report on that, usually, hopefully… 

What happened next: CCS has staggered on because it’s too useful, and in fact, it’s pretty much the only story that the coal industry has to tell, though there’s also all this shit about or there was this HELE – “high emissions, low efficiency” (sic) power plants, and the money that the Australian Coal Association put aside was repurposed to publicise the coal industry. And meanwhile, Gorgon, the Chevron CCS facility, has continued to massively underperform.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 16, 1965 – Rothschild writes to Lovelock – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1971 – “Ecology Action” formed in Sydney. – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1972 – David Bowie and (Five Years until) the End of the World. Also, Stockholm – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1994 – Australian business want international allies – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 2000 – Energy the Changing Climate report released – All Our Yesterdays