Author: drmarchudson

Categories
France

June 14, 1993 – International Conference on the Economics of Climate Change

Thirty two  years ago, on this day, June 14th, 1993, the OECD and IEA talk climate.

International Conference on the Economics Of Climate Change

OECD/IEA Paris 

14-16 June 1993

[en] An international Conference on the Economics of Climate Change was convened by the OECD and the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, in June 1993. Participants included many of the world’s foremost experts in the field, as well as representatives from business, labour, and other non-governmental organisations. The Conference sought to examine points of consensus and divergence among existing studies on the economics of climate change. Participants also focused on how economic analysis could contribute to meeting the obligations of OECD countries under the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. Discussions centered on such topics as the economic costs and benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, the potential role of carbon taxes and other economic instruments in the policy mix, possibilities for technological change and diffusion, especially in the energy sector, and joint abatement action between industrialized and developing countries. This volume contains the papers presented at the Conference, as well as summaries of the subsequent discussions. It provides an overview of the ‘state of the art’ in the economics of climate change and several suggestions for future research. (author)

The economics of climate change|INIS

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the OECD had been set up in the early 1960s as “the rich men’s club”. The IEA as a kind of offshoot of it in 1974, to cope with the consequences of the quadrupling of energy prices after the Arab Oil Embargo.  Both groups had been doing some thinking/co-ordinating about climate change from the late 1970s onwards

The specific context was that the Rio Earth Summit had given the world a relatively toothless “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” – with no targets or timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations (thanks, Uncle Sam!).  It hadn’t been ratified but everyone knew it probably would be.  And so, a meeting to discuss economic implications, technological and policy options etc.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings that the “smartest” among us are not that smart. Homo “sapiens” my fat arse.

As “active citizens” – that expensively indoctrina…sorry “educated” people with the “right” credentials have been summitting and conferencing for decades, and here we are.

Academics might like to ponder the above two sentences, while looking in the mirror.

What happened next

xxx

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.

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 14, 1979 – the messy inclusion of climate change in energy politics – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 14, 2011 – climate change threat to Australia’s top wines

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 14th, 2011,

CLIMATE change is a ticking time-bomb for Australia’s $5.5 billion wine industry and threatens some of our favourite wines with extinction, a study has revealed.

CSIRO climate change scientist and wine expert Leanne Webb examined ripening times across Australia and found grapes were maturing faster in recent warmer temperatures, affecting quality and taste.

Some growers say they are already modifying their winemaking to cope with the effects and at least one major player is taking steps to move production further south.

By Robert Burton-Bradley, NewsComAu

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/climate-change-threatens-australias-wine-industry-study-warns/news-story/afae2b1bc6ee62fb8858df1ee52019de

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was Australian scientists had been warning about the impacts of climate change on agriculture since the late 1970s.  It wasn’t a secret.

The specific context was that a rough coalition of people, organisations, business sectors were trying to work together to support the Gillard “carbon pricing” effort (see AOY passim ad nauseam) and this – “wine will be affected” was one of the memes to get across how Serious it all was.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that we just haven’t created and sustained the sorts of institutions that help us understand a complex world and relatively simple problems like climate change (I said relatively!).  And in the absence of those institutions (life-long self-directed learning, workers education associations, independent civil society) then people are prey to all sorts of weapons of mass distraction and mental immiseration.  And here we are.

As “active citizens” see above. The institutions were destroyed in the aftermath of World War 2….

Academics might like to ponder who they are writing for.

What happened next. Gillard’s legislation passed, possibly had some effect and was then abolished by the next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.

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.

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 14, 1979 – the messy inclusion of climate change in energy politics – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Indonesia

June 13, 2008 – Australia-Indonesia joint statement on climate change

Seventeen years ago, on this day, June 13th, 2008, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, still being given the benefit of the doubt by the Australian public, did one of the mostly meaningless grab and grins that he thought added up to a coherent policy agenda. 

Rudd, Kevin. 2008. ‘Australia-Indonesia joint leaders’ statement on climate change, with the President of the Republic of Indonesia’.

Media release. Prime Minister. Jakarta, Indonesia. 13 June 2008.

See also – http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/CGD-Climate-Forest-Paper-Series-21-Davies-Indonesia-Australia-Forest-Carbon.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that rich nations had been shitting on poor nations for a very long time. The climate issue, arriving in the late 1980s was only going to be solved if that behaviour was radically toned down/eliminated. So that’s what we did.  Ha ha, I’m just playing with you. The bullshit continued, and the poor nations knew it. They’re poor, not stupid (and the elites tend to be relatively rich, obvs).

The specific context was that Indonesia had hosted the Bali COP the year before, that created the “Road to Copenhagen.”  Newly-elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had gotten a standing ovation, principally for not being John Howard. Even though his intransigence on raising the level of emissions reductions targets was noted by the European, he still managed to convince people that He Cared.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – it is kayfabe. “Leaders” do these pressers, giving the appearance of action, but it’s just stunted stunts for stunned mullets.

As “active citizens” – pay as little attention to these kayfabic pseudo-events as possible?

Academics might like to ponder – their complicity in all this.

What happened next  Rudd only came unstuck in 2010, after ditching his climate “action” “plans” and refusing to call an election about them.  Spineless, brainless.  He then was, deservedly, toppled by his deputy, Julia Gillard.

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.

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 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say” – All Our Yesterdays

June 13, 2008 – activists stop coal train, throw coal off. Convictions eventually quashed… – All Our Yesterdays

June 13 1963 – Revelle, Von Braun and Teller talk futures

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say”

Categories
United States of America

June 12, 1996 – scumbag denialists smear a scientist

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 12th, 1996, scumbag denialists attacked a climate scientist.

1996 editorial-page attack on Ben Santer in the Wall Street Journal

Frederick Seitz, in a Wall Street Journal complained that alterations made to Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report were made to “deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.” Similar charges were made by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a consortium of industry interests; specifically, they accused Santer of “scientific cleansing.”[6]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the attacks on scientists who do “impact science” (as it was dubbed by Alan Schnaiberg in the 1970s) have been going on for a long time. Check out Henrik Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People”. See also the attacks on those who raised concerns about ozone in the 1970s. From the late 1980s outfits like the George C Marshall Institute and the Global Climate Coalition were honing their skills in smearing any scientist who was warning of trouble ahead.

The specific context was that the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report had come out and included the conclusion that there was already a discernible impact on the climate of human activity. This drove the denialist fools and liars into a frenzy of hate and wrath. They picked on someone they perceived to be vulnerable (what Michael Mann would later dub ‘the Serengeti Strategy’).

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – watch out for old white men (and others, obvs) who no longer have the social power/cachet that they used to have. They are butt-hurt and will act out.  Especially if they’re paid to do so by powerful material interests.

As “active citizens” – name the tactics – name the smearing, the “Serengeti Strategy”.

Academics might like to ponder – their complicities.

What happened next  Santer survived, has had a great career. The denialists no longer deny, they focus on lies about the cost and reliability of renewables as opposed to fossil fuels.  They deserve to be ignored and/or sent to the Hague.

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.

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 12, 1992 – Australia refuses to put a tax on carbon: “It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling. We won’t.”

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Categories
Australia

June 11, 2011 – miners want more compensation

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 11th, 2011, in the midst of the fierce fight over the Gillard carbon pricing scheme, a union had its hand out, again.,

ONE of the nation’s largest unions has threatened a blue-collar revolt should the nation’s dirtiest coalmines fail to receive the same level of assistance as they were promised under the original emissions trading scheme.

With industry compensation still being thrashed out behind closed doors, the national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Tony Maher, said he is worried coalminers will be dudded to appease the Greens.

Coorey, P. 2011. Mine union digs in over compensation under a carbon tax. Sydney Morning Herald,  June 11, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that proposals for a carbon price (a tax) were put forward in the 1990s within the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process, and then again in 1994-5. The latter had been defeated by a broad coalition of clever actors, who tactically incorporated the mining union, which managed to dominate the climate issue within the ACTU.  Various other efforts at carbon pricing (Emissions Trading Schemes) had been put forward in 2000 and 2003, and were defeated by John Howard and his cronies.  The lack of any action on climate (and carbon pricing is only one small part of what was required, but hey-ho) was a major factor in the defeat of John Howard in 2007. But Kevin Rudd’s disastrous “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” didn’t fix things.

The specific context was that after the 2010 election Labor leader Julia Gillard only formed a government with the support of Greens and independent MPs, who demanded a carbon price.  So, she gritted her teeth and got on with it.  And along came the miners, with their hands out again…

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we’re doomed.

As “active citizens” policy is at best a sausage, and it doesn’t pay to look too closely at how it is made.

What happened next  Gillard’s carbon pricing mechanism became law and may have been responsible for some emissions reductions (depending who you ask – other folks point to the introduction of more hydropower into the Australian grid).  In any case, it was abolished by Tony “moron” Abbott in 2014.

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.

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 11, 1997 – US ambassador says Australia should stop being so awful on #climate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Podcasts

Podcast reviews: authoritarianism, IRA and writing climate… and the hypocrite-zealot trap

As per last review Boiling Point, the LA Times podcast on climate, remains a must listen.

In the latest episode “Fighting Climate Change in an Authoritarian Age” (29 mins) Sammy Roth interviews James McCarthy, a geographer at Clark University. It’s nicely done. McCarthy references a 2019 special issue of the Annals of American Association of Geographers.

Here’s his editorial – Authoritarianism, Populism, and the Environment: Comparative Experiences, Insights, and Perspectives

And here’s the table of contents of the issue itself.

The “Energy Gang” is for energy (policy) wonks, and owned by Wood McKenzie, but usually good value (it gets a bit breathless sometimes, falling into horse-races and hype, as these sorts of podcasts are wont to do). This one – “It’s looking bleak for clean energy in the US as Congress threatens to shred the Inflation Reduction Act” – had useful stuff on the Big Beautiful Bill and so on. A new four letter acronym for you – FEOC – Foreign Entity Of Concern.

Finally, and best of all is the Los Angeles Review of Books “radio hour” on “Writing Climate Fictions” from August 2024 (so, before the Pallisades etc burnt).

It was a panel with David Wallace-Wells, Jenny Offill, Bharat Venkat, and Jonathan Blake.

There was a shout out to an interesting sounding novel called Denial by John Raymond.

They chewed on various topics of course. This included hypocrisy at one point and how it is used to deflect, but didn’t (understandably because they have never heard of it) use the concept (okay MY concept) of the “Hypocrite-Zealot Trap.“

Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

June 10, 1961 – Nature report on “Solar Variations, Climatic Change and Related Geophysical Problems”

Sixty four years ago, on this day, June 10th, 1961 the UK scientific publication Nature runs an article by climatologist Gordon Manley about the recent symposium in New York…

It became abundantly clear how large a number of investigators are patiently accumulating evidence of the amplitude, character, effects and especially the dating of climatic fluctuations all over the world. Speculations regarding the causes abound; supporters of each of the popular theories-solar variation, atmospheric turbidity, carbon dioxide, ozone, variations in the Earth’s orbital elements-find their several gods alternately set up and cast down. Workers in one field find themselves unable to judge the validity of the evidence from other disciplines;

MANLEY, G. Solar Variations, Climatic Change and Related Geophysical Problems. Nature 190, 967–968 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1038/190967a0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the modern argument that carbon dioxide build-up would heat the planet had been given a huge boost in 1953 by Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass.  The International Geophysical Year (1957-8) had added a bit to the interest.  

The specific context was the New York Academy of Sciences had held a big symposium, and Plass, Herman Flohn and others were present. Manley was there too…The international linkages were there….

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – we have had so many warnings for so long. The problem is not our brains, it’s our spines.

As “active citizens” is that the problem is not our brains, it’s our spines.

Academics might like to ponder – growing spines.

What happened next  By 1963 the Conservation Foundation held a meeting just on carbon dioxide, proposed by the Yale biologist  G Evelyn Hutchinson, though ironically he was unable to attend due to illness.  The carbon dioxide build-up issue also began to work its way through the Presidents Science Advisory Council (LINK).

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.

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 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Hydrogen

June 10, 2019 – a booming market for hydrogen….

Six years ago, on this day, June 10th, 2019,

“The costs associated with hydrogen are significant – and the safety issues of hydrogen are very significant. When Norway had four [hydrogen] filling stations, one of them exploded, resulting in the whole of the infrastructure for hydrogen cars in the country collapsing

from website that won’t let me connect

and

In Sandvika near Oslo, an explosion occurred at a hydrogen filling station for fuel cell cars on Monday. Until establishing the cause of the incident, the supplier Nel has closed ten more stations.

According to Norwegian media, the explosion took place on Monday around 5:30 pm at the Uno-X station in the Oslo suburb of Sandvika. According to the company, no one was injured but one report mentions two minor injuries.

“It is too early to speculate about the cause,” Nel boss Jon André Løkke said in a telephone interview. “Our top priority is the safe operation of the stations we supply. As a precaution, we have temporarily closed ten more stations until further information is available.” 

Randall, c. 2019. Norway: Explosion at hydrogen filling station. https://www.electrive.com/2019/06/11/norway-explosion-at-fuel-cell-filling-station/

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/norway-fines-nel-units-3-million-over-2019-blast-at-hydrogen-fuel-station-idUSKBN2AG2MF

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 414ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that hydrogen has many hypers, who don’t always seem to know the history (LINK).

What I think we can learn from this.  Boom!! And bust cycles happen.

What happened next The hydrogen hype continued, for a while at least.

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: 

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

 June 10, 2015 – Abbott and Jones versus windfarms

Ten years ago, on this day, June 10th, 2015 soon to be ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott was being, well, Tony Abbott.

Bill Shorten accuses PM of hurting investment in renewables as Abbott says his government is working to reduce the number of ‘visually awful’ turbines

Tony Abbott finds windfarms visually awful and agrees they may have “potential health impacts”, and says the deal on the renewable energy target was designed to reduce their numbers as much as the current Senate would allow.

Speaking to the Sydney radio host Alan Jones – a long-term windfarm critic – the prime minister said: “I do take your point about the potential health impact of these things … when I’ve been up close to these windfarms not only are they visually awful but they make a lot of noise.

Taylor, L. 2015. Tony Abbott agrees windfarms may have ‘potential health impacts’. The Guardian, 10 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 403ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Tony Abbott is an idiot

The specific context was that Tony Abbott is an idiot and that his outriders and enablers are also idiots. Often they are smart, and have no excuse for what they did, beyond greed.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we choose the most idiotic to lead us (see the psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion on this).

As “active citizens” we should watch out for allowing idiots to lead us.

Academics might like to ponder – their role in puffing up idiots to lead us.

What happened next

xxx

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.

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 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

June 10, 1966 – Seaborg’s commencement address

Fifty nine years ago, on this day, June 10th, 1966, the head of the Atomic Energy Commission (hardly a hippie!) gave a commencement address that name-checked carbon dioxide build-up,

10 June 1966 

Seaborg commencement address at San Diego (see Maddow 2019, Blowout)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 321ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the issue had been “lurking” in the newspapers (especially but not exclusively the US ones) since the early 1950s.  

The specific context was

By 1965 it had “broken through” – getting name-checked in the special message of LBJ to Congress about Natural Beauty/Pollution, and then getting a whole chapter in the big fat report released by the Presidents Scientific Advisory Council in late 1965.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we knew

As “active citizens” we knew

Academics might like to ponder – their role in helping people not know.

What happened next

By the late 1960s the carbon dioxide build-up problem was being used by proponents of nuclear (including Seaborg) as a point for them and against coal. Thee years to the day, in fact, there was an article in the New York Times…

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.

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 10, 1969 – pro-nukers mention carbon dioxide in a New York Times article – All Our Yesterdays

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays