Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Uncategorized

April 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate

Fourteen years ago, on this day, April 27th, 2010, soon-to-be-ex Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd sorta seals his fate.

Rudd’s problem, however, was not just the decision but the manner of its release. The story was broken by Lenore Taylor in the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 April when she reported that the ETS had been shelved ‘for at least three years’. The leak to Taylor was devastating. Rudd was taken by surprise and left without an explanation. ‘It was a very damaging leak and hard to retrieve, ‘ Wong said. ‘It derailed our government’, Martin Ferguson said.

(Kelly, 2014:292)

And

It was the decision that seemed to snap voters’ faith in Kevin Rudd. Perhaps a final straw. Straight after the government announced it was deferring an emissions trading scheme until 2013, graphs of the Prime Minister’s satisfaction rating looked like a rock falling off a cliff. Labor’s primary vote tumbled after it. The kitchen cabinet was scheduled to meet on April 27 to decide exactly how to explain the delay, and the conditions under which the government would pledge that the ETS policy would be revived.

News of the decision had also filtered through to a few members of the broader cabinet, who had determined to try to wind it back when cabinet met to “ratify” the budget on April 29. But on the morning of April 27, the Herald disclosed the decision to remove the scheme from the budget in a front page article entitled “ETS off the agenda until late next term”. It was the first many ministers and senior public servants had heard of it.

Knowing the back story helps explain why the government’s response on that day was so confused.

Taylor, L. 2010. Decision that shattered faith in PM. Sydney Morning Herald, 5 June, p.2

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Rudd had used climate as a stick to beat John Howard with, then enjoyed Turnbull twisting in the wind as the Nationals and many Liberals were not as keen on climate action as Turnbull was.

What I think we can learn from this

Spineless people don’t grow spines (see also Starmer, Keir).

What happened next

Chaos and horror. Not the fault of Gillard or the Greens. It’s all on Rudd and Abbott and their enablers.

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: 

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

April 27, 1999 – 2% increase in use of renewables report received

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, April 27th, 1999, another government-appointed group delivered another ‘worthy’ report.

The high-level Greenhouse Energy Group will today receive the final report of the task force set up by the Federal Government to devise ways to meet its target of a 2 per cent increase in the use of renewable energy over the next decade.

Hordern, N. 1999. Greenhouse targets study ready. Australian Financial Review, 27 April, p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as part of his pre Kyoto spoiler efforts, John Howard had promised a 2% renewable energy target. That was in 1997. The whole process had been extremely painfully drawn out by it since then, meaning that it was in effect, a 1% target. And this was another small link in a long chain of events. So let’s have another report. Let’s have another Working Group. Let’s just draaaag the process out for as long as possible to demoralise and confuse everyone, so that we don’t have to do what we promised we would do. Politics business as usual. 

What we learn is they’ll make a promise but then getting them to implement it requires more energy, tenacity, and smarts than social movements and civil society tend to have. 

What happened next, A pipsqueak Mandatory Renewable Energy Target was finally introduced in April of 2002. And despite everything Howard had done, was already too successful, working too well, so by May of 2004, he was asking his business buddies for help in undermining it. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

April 26, 1992 – Ros Kelly abjures a carbon tax

Thirty two years ago, on this day, April 26th, 1992 the entirely sensible idea of a carbon tax was killed off (for now), with the Australian Federal Environment Minister running up the white flag again.

A spokesman for Environment Minister Ros Kelly said the Government was not considering a “carbon tax”, which would hit fossil fuels such as petrol and coal. Instead – at least as a first step – it favoured “no-regret” options. These were measures to increase energy efficiency, which will have overall economic benefits even if dire greenhouse scenarios don’t eventuate. The spokesman said: “This Government would be delinquent if it did not take a precautionary rather than a cavalier approach to the greenhouse effect. The worst-case scenarios are terrifying.”

BCA spokesman Mark Emerson said Australia should not support the EC proposal for a commitment by developed countries to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. “Business is concerned that, against the background of the enormous scientific uncertainties, inappropriate policy responses might be applied which would have devastating economic and social effects without any discernible environmental benefits,” he said. “None of Australia’s regional trading partners or competitors – except New Zealand – will agree to the EC option.”

Skinner, S. 1992. Greenhouse: Aust yet to set its policy. Sun Herald, 26 April, p. 13.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the idea of a carbon tax had been raised within the Ecologically Sustainable Development groups. Entirely sensible idea. And it had sent business or elements of business into a total meltdown. And now, under the new Keating government, it was off the table. But of course, Kelly would be going to the Rio Earth Summit in a couple of months. And the headbangers didn’t want her trying to sneak things in via the back door. 

What we learn is that simple straightforward ideas that would have helped were defeated by powerful greedy actors who had only their own short-term power and comfort in mind. And politicians went along for the ride. 

What happened next, Rio happened. There was another attempt to get a carbon tax through in 94/95, after Ross Kelly was forced to resign over sports routes. And it failed. And we as a species failed 

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: 

April 26, 1998 – New York Times front page expose on anti-climate action by industry

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

Categories
Australia

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, April 25th, 1989, it was all put in stark terms at the University of Wollongong. (Spoiler, the answer is “no, not ‘dying’, being murdered – there’s a difference.),

25 April 1989 University of Wollongong Campus News – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was losing their mind about “the greenhouse effect.” Or alternatively, you can say, understanding the implications and the likelihood that no one would do anything meaningful. This was happening around the world. 

What we learn is, we knew what was at stake we really did. Alternatively, you could say the world is not dying, it’s being killed and the people who are killing it have names and addresses, as per Utah Phillips. 

What happened next, everyone pledged their devotion to the cause of climate change or the greenhouse effect. For about five minutes. Then most of us went back to sleep, failing to understand what was at stake or understanding it but feeling powerless, lonely, et cetera. Because it is just unimaginably big as an issue. 

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: 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

Categories
Business Responses United Kingdom

April 24, 2004 – Launch of the Climate Group

Twenty-years ago, on this day, April 24th, 2004, the business outfit the “Climate Group” was launched, with a speech by Tony Blair.

24 April 2004 Launch of the Climate Group. Blair speaks at it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3662303.stm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process was potentially coming back on board with Kyoto moving towards ratification. Businesses were worrying. The Global Climate Coalition was dead. There was a space for new business activity. And along comes the Climate Group launched today but probably conceived a couple of years before. 

What we learn is that the early 2000s mark a kind of shift, there is that split in business between what the headbangers have wanted and succeeded in destroying, i.e. destroying high ambition. And then there’s all the other companies, which might make money from the green transition, or can just read a bloody Keeling curve, and see that there’s trouble ahead. 

What happened next, the Climate Group had its peak years probably in the run up to Copenhagen. It’s still going. I’m not quite sure why. There is now a coalition called “we mean business” as well. But there’s always a proliferation of these groups, I guess, representing slightly different interests and making work for well-meaning but fundamentally dim technocrats.

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: 

April 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?

Categories
Australia

April 23, 2013 – Power Companies want Abbott to rethink Direct Action

Eleven years ago, on this day, April 23rd, 2013, power companies tried to influence the “mind” of Tony Abbott, who was a dead-cert to become Prime Minister at the forthcoming Federal Election.

Power companies have urged the Coalition to rethink its ‘direct action’ carbon plan, saying that it may cause them more difficulty than the Government’s emissions trading scheme.

The Australian Financial Review reports that the Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) has urged the Coalition to change its plan to immediately scrap the carbon tax if it wins the federal election on September 14.

ESSA represents big power companies such as Origin, TRUenergy and International Power. It has supported an emissions trading scheme for a long time and the recent….

https://www.manmonthly.com.au/power-companies-urge-coalition-to-change-carbon-plan/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Abbott was clearly going to become prime minister, Labor’s opinion poll ratings were in the toilet. His idiotic “direct action” policy was going to become law of the land. And the power companies would be adversely affected because it was opaque and stupid. And so you know, “be careful what you wish for you might get it.” They had either resisted Gillard’s carbon tax or played dead. And now there were going to be consequences for those actions. 

What we learn is that businesses are fantastically short-sighted despite their claim to do long term planning or being responsible, farsighted, on behalf of investors, etc. And here we are. 

What happened next? Abbott became prime minister. He abolished Gillard’s Emissions Trading Scheme, instituted his moronic direct action. Emissions didn’t go down the way they needed to. 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.

Also on this day: 

April 23, 1954 – Irish Times runs carbon dioxide/climate story. Yes, 1954.

April 23, 1998 – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper published.

April 23, 1970 – book review nails coming #climate problems…

April 23, 2009 – denialists caught denying their own scientists…

Categories
United Kingdom

April 22, 1965 – Manchester Evening News article on C02 and global warming

Fifty nine years ago, on this day, April 22nd, 1965, the Manchester Evening News ran another article warning about carbon dioxide build up,

22 April 1965 Article about C02 and global warming in Manchester Evening News

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 320ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a couple of months earlier, Lyndon Johnson, as President of the United States, had made a special address to Congress, which mentioned CO2 buildup, and other scientists were sniffing around the issue. The Evening News has talked about carbon dioxide buildup before but this was a pretty clear case. 

What we learn is that if you were a tolerably intelligent person with a tolerably decent memory, and I don’t know, O-level chemistry and physics, you’d have understood the climate issue from them a lot earlier than I thought even a couple of years ago. 

What happened next Manchester Evening News very periodically covered the issue. So did everyone. But it wasn’t really until ‘69 – 70 that it got any traction, and then it went away again until 1988. 

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: 

April 22, 1975 – UK Civil Service scratches its head on #climate

April 22, 1993 – Clinton’s announcement used by anti-carbon pricing Aussies

Categories
Australia

April 21, 1977 – Australian Parliament debate on Uranium – C02 build up mentioned

Forty-seven years ago, on this day, April 21st, 1977, Australian parliamentarians are told about carbon dioxide build-up, John Francis Cotter (Liberal) MP for Kalgoorlie had this to say 

They are forced to this situation by the desperate shortage of fossil fuels throughout the world and the immense dangers which are inherent in burning fossil fuels, particularly coal. Almost daily people are dying from the pollution effects of coal fired power stations. Yet no one is getting emotional over mining and burning of coal. It’s a bit like the terrible carnage on our roads. Because it happens every day no one seems to care any more. Nonetheless the hazards of coal fired power stations have not diminished. In fact there is every reason to believe that the CO2 catastrophe is possibly the most portentious aspect of our entire long range energy policy. It is my belief that once the CO2 problem becomes widely understood, even given all the uncertainties, it will become the single strongest argument for turning to the nuclear alternative. Most scientists viewing the accelerated burning of fossil fuels now agree that CO2 will warm the earth’s surface temperature significantly.

[source]

 Peter Baume (also a Liberal MP), later in the same debate, said this – 

I then proceed to outline some of the major problems with which I believe conservationists have not adequately coped. I stress the points made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie about carbon dioxide. He certainly stated the position very clearly; there is a real risk to our existence on this planet from carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. I would like to hear the same kind of analysis of the risks applied to our existing fuel usage as has been applied with extraordinary enthusiasm to the projected fuel usage of a material which is available in Australia and whose development would be to our national advantage. When I hear a comparable analysis from the conservationists group, I will believe that they have a far sounder basis on which to approach the people of Australia with a rational argument.

As has been pointed out by Dr Weinberg in the paper to which the honourable member for Kalgoorlie referred, the CO2 catastrophe-the carbon dioxide catastrophe- is possibly the most portentious aspect in our entire long range energy policy. If the carbon dioxide concentrations increase, more radiation from the sun is directed back towards earth and the earth’s temperature increases. It is, of course, the green house effect. Since the mid-nineteenth century there has been an estimated 10 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. About 50 per cent of the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels goes into the atmosphere and stays there. If the world continues to increase its usage of fossil fuels at a rate of 4 per cent, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will double by the middle of the twenty-first century, according to Dr Weinberg.

http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770421_reps_30_hor104/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia was wanting to export uranium to nuclear powers around the world. And not everyone was on board with that, for reasons of proliferation and just being against nuclear energy. And so therefore there was a debate in Parliament. What’s interesting is that carbon dioxide buildup was already being spoken of. In such fora. This is perhaps unsurprising given that CSIRO had made some movies and that the Australian Academy of Science had released a report – it came out in 76. So it’s not altogether surprising. 

What we learn is that carbon dioxide build-up was a topic of conversation by the mid-1970s.

What happened next? We exported uranium. Nuclear power did not make a dent in the upward trajectory of our emissions, and of atmospheric concentrations.

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: 

April 21, 1992 – President Bush again threatens to boycott Earth Summit

April 21, 1993 – Bill Clinton says US will tackle carbon emissions.

Categories
Uncategorized

April 20, 2009 – World has Six Years to Act, says Penny Sackett

Fifteen years ago, on this day, April 20th, 2009, the Australian Chief Scientist tried to inject some urgency into the policy debate…,

The Government’s chief scientist wants the country to set the toughest possible targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, warning that action must begin now against climate change.

The Government has committed to cutting Australia’s emissions by 5 to 15 percent of 2000 levels by 2020 and wants to start an emissions trading scheme next year.

However, the target has been slammed by the Greens and environmental groups as being too low and the Opposition has also recently signalled it would support a stronger cut in emissions.

Professor Penny Sackett would not put an exact figure on what she thought the target should be but she said she has advised the Government to set the steepest target possible.

Anon. 2009. World has 6 years to act on climate change. ABC,, April 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Rudd Government had been selling out the future by allowing lobbyists for the oil and gas and coal industries to chip away and chip away at the already initially piss-weak ambition of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It was about to be introduced to Parliament, and presumably Penny Sackett, Chief Scientific Adviser was trying to stiffen everyone’s resolve so that further compromises would be minimal. Well, ideally, ambition will be ramped up, but no, it’s a ratchet. 

What we learn is that scientists are largely powerless in these matters and all they can do is speak truth to power and power will ignore them and so it came to pass. 

What happened next? Rudd’s Piss-weak and ever pisser weaker legislation was defeated because of Tony Abbott. And because the Greens decided something bad would come along, Rudd was toppled the following year. And Sackett resigned in April 2011 without giving a reason, but this has shed some light on why she might have done that. 

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: 

April 20, 2006 – David Cameron does “hug-a-husky” to detoxify the Conservative “brand”

April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud

Categories
Uncategorized

April 20, 2010 – Deep Water Horizon

Fourteen years ago, on this day, April 20th, 2010, another of those normal accidents happened…,

2010 Deepwater Horizon rig explodes

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the clue is in the name, Deepwater and Horizon, both implying that we’re having to go further and further to find oil, that the energy return on investment is lowering and it’s getting riskier. And so it did. The context was that we’ve been extracting oil. If you don’t count Burma for 170 years, we’re very good at it. If by good you want to overlook the inevitable leaks, and the inevitable tanker disasters, these normal accidents. 

What we learn Is that accidents happen. Normal accidents happen…

What happened next, BP tried to dodge the blame with a certain amount of success. The marine environments were devastated. people’s livelihoods were devastated. But we’ve moved on… other disasters we can expect. And there’s the Onion story, clearly inspired by Deepwater Horizon…

Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe

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: 

April 20, 2006 – David Cameron does “hug-a-husky” to detoxify the Conservative “brand”

April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud