Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United Kingdom

October 31, 1992- A Schumacher lecture – “Environmental Literacy: Education as if the Earth Mattered”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 31st, 1992,

Environmental Literacy: Education as if the Earth Mattered

By David W. Orr https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/environmental-literacy-education-as-if-the-earth-mattered/

Yet there are better reasons to rethink education that have to do with issues of human survival, which will dominate the world of the twenty-first century. The generation now being educated will have to do what we, the present generation, have been unable or unwilling to do: stabilize a world population that is growing at the rate of a quarter of a million each day; stabilize and then reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, which threaten to change the climate—perhaps disastrously; protect biological diversity, now declining at an estimated rate of one hundred to two hundred species per day; reverse the destruction of rainforests (both tropical and temperate), now being lost at the rate of one hundred and sixteen square miles or more each day; and conserve soils, now being eroded at the rate of sixty-five million tons per day. Those who follow us must learn how to use energy and materials with great efficiency. They must learn how to utilize solar energy in all its forms. They must rebuild the economy in order to eliminate waste and pollution. They must learn how to manage renewable resources for the long term. They must begin the great work of repairing, as much as possible, the damage done to the earth in the past two hundred years of industrialization. And they must do all of this while addressing worsening social and racial inequities. No generation has ever faced a more daunting agenda.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm. 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 was is that whenever there is an intractable political issue that is going result in deadlock and bloodshed and so forth, you’ll always find some liberals slapping the word “literacy” after whatever it is, because information deficit model has held a role with their touching faith in humanity and the adequate ability, if not perfectibility, of man. And of course banging on about information deficit models, or within that scope allows you to avoid tricky questions about power and privilege. It also gives you a privileged position of being the lecturer, the hector who knows things that other people need to know. 

The specific context was the UN climate treaty had been signed and would – at some point in the coming years – be ratified by enough nations to become lore. Sorry law.

What I think we can learn from is there’s always people like that willing to jump here. If the problem is lack of knowledge, necessarily, it gives them status, it gives them comfort, gives them money.What happened next. Your friendly neighbourhood liberals kept banging on about literacy as the first (and often foremost and final) action. And other people kept being somewhat less impressed.

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

October 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity

October 31, 2004 – QE2 lobbied Blair on climate, reports Observer

October 31, 2006 – Stern Review “pure speculation” according to John Howard

October 31, 2018 – Extinction Rebellion makes its declaration of rebellion

Categories
Academia Activism

Failure, Malthus and Cynical Reason

Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan, said John F Kennedy.

Well, we now have forty years (longer, really, but that’s for another time) of escalating failure around “climate policy” and nobody wants to face up to it. Everyone’s got someone else to blame for what went wrong (again and again and again).

I’ll write another time about the failures of the social movements (corpse twitches), but for now let’s talk about one of the barriers I don’t see talked about enough (it may exist elsewhere, just not where I am looking).

One of the problems is that, in essence – the dirty fucking hippies were right: you cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet, and the people who are running the show can’t bring themselves to accept that the dirty fucking hippies were right.

The problem (other problems are possible) is that when global environmental concerns properly burst onto the scene in the late 1960s, it was framed in fairly nakedly Malthusian terms – “x is running out.”

This led both to panic among the hippies and sneering “Malthus with a computer” style snark from people at institutions I used to rate (also though, sour grapes).  

But the problem was not (only) how much stuff there was (land, water, minerals) but – and this is where a slightly better understanding of ecological systems would have helped – the capacity of the planet to absorb the damage we were inflicting without tipping over into something much less friendly to continued human ‘civilisation.’

So, through the 70s ad 80s, as the confident predictions made in the late 60s of Impending and Inevitable Doom were disproved, the cornucopians – those who thought you could have infinite growth on a finite planet – were able to sneer and laugh, while the last days we might have done something to avoid suicidal omnicide slipped away, as days are wont to do.

But now, to really face up to what has happened, and where we are at (not that it would matter, in my opinion, but that is again another post), people with fancy degrees and fancier job titles and fancier-still (imperial) modes of living would have to admit that the dirty fucking hippiers were indeed right and that they had been wrong. 

This would, at an individual and class (PMC?) level, be devastating psychologically and professionally (who wants to admit they screwed up for decades? Only inverted narcissists and masochists – it’s not so much a career-limiting move as a career-ender.).

So we will stagger on for as long as we can, pretending we can see the Emperor’s New Clothes, making sure any gobby seven year old boys get rendered (either in the Guantanamo sense, or the meat-processing sense).

But “as long as we can” is doing a lot of work there.  I think this El Nino, and the weather and climate events of 2027, are going to make that very very expensive politically and intellectually. Fun times.

Two other things 

It’s 20 years since the Stern Review. See here for Fiona Harvey’s take –

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/oct/28/nicholas-stern-report-climate-consensus-lessons-capitalism

This is where  “Cynical Reason” might come in 


Categories
Denial United States of America

October 30, 2006- “Knock it off” letter by Senators to Exxon

Twenty years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2006,

On Oct. 30, 2006, Senators John D. Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R.-Maine) wrote an extraordinary open letter to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson urging him to end his company’s support of “climate-change-denial front groups.” The only organization mentioned by name is the one that the authors of this article work for — the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The senators’ letter then goes on to announce: “A study to be released in November by an American scientific group will expose ExxonMobil as the primary funder of no fewer than 29 climate-change-denial front groups in 2004 alone.” http://humanevents.com/2007/05/08/liberal-scientists-lead-jihad-against-globalwarming-skeptics/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 was that the oil companies, including Exxon, had been well aware of the carbon dioxide issue in the 70s, and Exxon had initially collaborated with scientists to understand it better. Exxon then took the fateful decision to oppose climate action, and they had done so very successfully, both within bodies like the Global Climate Coalition and the other trade bodies, but also solo. They had been instrumental in getting Bob Watson fired after only one term as IPCC chair.

In September 2006 (i.e. a month earlier), the Royal Society had taken the extraordinary step of an open letter trying to get the Exxon mob to stop financing denialist groups. 

Here you see a couple of senators also saying knock it off. This is the same 2006 as the year when the whole climate issue had really exploded onto television screens and people’s consciousness again, really for the first time since 1990.

What I think we can learn from this – too much concentrated wealth is concentrated power is bad for the “common good.”

What happened next – Exxon persisted in being Exxon.

xxx

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

Xx

References

xx

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:

October 30, 1972 – Carroll Wilson writes to Maurice Strong, pondering networks 

October 30, 1983 – Carl Sagan hosts ‘nuking ourselves would be bad’ conference. 

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review published.

October 30, 2007 – Albanese grievance debate on Stern Review – “We simply cannot afford to wait any longer”

October 30, 2008 – a worker-greenie coalition? Maybe… 

October 30, 2009 – QRC bullshit about CCS – “first commercial scale CCS electricity generator by about 2015”

Categories
United States of America

October 30, 1981 – Summer Ice and Carbon Dioxide 

Forty five years ago, on this day, October 30th, 1981,

Summer Ice and Carbon Dioxide G. Kukla and J. Gavin Science, 30 October 1981 

The extent of Antarctic pack ice in the summer, as charted from satellite imagery, decreased by 2.5 million square kilometers between 1973 and 1980. The U.S. Navy and Russian atlases and whaling and research ship reports from the 1930’s indicate that summer ice conditions earlier in this century were heavier than the current average. Surface air temperatures along the seasonally shifting belt of melting snow between 55° and 80°N during spring and summer were higher in 1974 to 1978 than in 1934 to 1938. The observed departures in the two hemispheres qualitatively agree with the predicted impact of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, since it is not known to what extent the changes in snow and ice cover and in temperature can be explained by the natural variability of the climate system or by other processes unrelated to carbon dioxide, a cause-and-effect relation cannot yet be established.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. 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 was that by 1981 scientific papers were being published left, right, and centre about carbon dioxide build-up, and you can read about some of them in the CO2 Newsletter. And the question here is, what will happen to ice in the summer? Nothing good, I’m melting, I’m melting. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the scientists were on it long, long before Joe and Jane Public picked up, understandably. And the scientists have continued to be on it, and it hasn’t mattered one jot, really.

What happened next Well, the summer ice started shrinking, and here we are. 

xxx

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

October 30, 1972 – Carroll Wilson writes to Maurice Strong, pondering networks 

October 30, 1983 – Carl Sagan hosts ‘nuking ourselves would be bad’ conference. 

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publshed.

October 30, 2007 – Albanese grievance debate on Stern Review – “We simply cannot afford to wait any longer”

October 30, 2008 – a worker-greenie coalition? Maybe… 

October 30, 2009 – QRC bullshit about CCS – “first commercial scale CCS electricity generator by about 2015”

Categories
Australia

October 29, 1979 – Speech by Senator Webster about Cape Grim

Forty seven years ago, on this day, October 29th, 1979,

Speech by Senator Webster about Cape Grim (Conservation Council of South Australia Newsletter)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. 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 was that super-accurate measures of carbon dioxide had been taken from 1958 at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, and Antarctica.

Since the early 1970s there was a relatively consistent, persistent measuring exercise in Australia. They started measuring on commercial aeroplanes, or with the assistance of, I think, TAA, the state-owned airline, and then a permanent carbon dioxide collection began at Cape Grim, which was already a CSIRO monitoring station. 

The specific context here is that you see a senator giving a speech, hardly unusual. It’s what senators are for. This one happens to be the Minister for the Environment under the Fraser government. And emissions were going up, and everyone who was paying attention (not many at this time, to everyone else’s shame) could see there was trouble ahead. 

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been monitoring this problem for half a century, failing to do anything about it for almost as long. 

What happened next Cape Grim kept monitoring, and what it kept monitoring was that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide just continued to rise and rise remorselessly.

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

 October 29, 1984 – Lord Ashby speaks out

October 29, 1990 – the Joint Council of Energy and Environment Ministers of the European Community decide to save the world.

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to help save planet. Does it? Of course it doesn’t.

October 29, 2004 – Aussie environmentalists win a court case…

October 29, 2004 – the end is near says Kurt Vonnegut.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

October 28, 1994 – Give us some green, say greens

Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 28th, 1994,

The federal Environment Minister, John Faulkner, promised yesterday to consider proposals from Australia’s peak environment groups to double green spending and expand conservation programs, but said he must remain “realistic”.

The Peak Conservation Organisation called on the Federal Government yesterday to introduce resource taxes, such as a carbon levy, to fund a doubled commitment to the country’s environment.

In a 60-page submission to Senator Faulkner, the green groups also have sought the removal of tax and subsidy measures, such as the diesel fuel rebate and land clearing subsidies, which they say promote exploitation of the environment.

Anon, 1994. Greens seek more funds. The Canberra Times, 29 October, p.8.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/118294681

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 was that green groups had expanded in the late 1980s but had been unable to sustain membership and donations, and were facing near bankruptcy, very tough times.

Inevitably you want to get some money from somewhere, and you get it from the state, but then that comes with both reputational risks, but also you get hooked on it, and before you know it, you’re a handmaiden, um those are the dangers. 

What I think we can learn from this – social change, even maintaining an NGO, is really hard.

What happened next – ACF and the other outfits continued, but have been tamed, inevitably. Marxists would tell you this is inevitable.

xxx

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

October 28, 1906 – the birth of the Press Release

October 28, 1956 – New York Times reports “Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air”

October 28, 1968 – Los Angeles Times report on the possibility of an environment conference

October 28, 1994 – UK agriculture and climate change workshop

Categories
United States of America

October 27, 1987- Hansen at Preparing For Climate Change

Thirty nine years ago, on this day, October 27th, 1987, James Hansen was at a “Preparing For Climate Change” conference – Nathaniel Rich Losing Earth

“Congress had already begun to consider policy — in 1987 alone, there were eight days of climate hearings, in three committees, across both chambers of Congress; Senator Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat, had introduced legislation to establish a national climate-change strategy. And so it was that Jim Hansen found himself on Oct. 27 in the not especially distinguished ballroom of the Quality Inn on New Jersey Avenue, a block from the Capitol, at “Preparing for Climate Change,” which was technically a conference but felt more like a wedding.

The convivial mood had something to do with its host. John Topping was an old-line Rockefeller Republican, a Commerce Department lawyer under Nixon and an E.P.A. official under Reagan. He first heard about the climate problem in the halls of the E.P.A. in 1982 and sought out Hansen, who gave him a personal tutorial. Topping was amazed to discover that out of the E.P.A.’s 13,000-person staff, only seven people, by his count, were assigned to work on climate, though he figured it was more important to the long-term security of the nation than every other environmental issue combined.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 349ppm. 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 was that James Hansen had been warning people about carbon dioxide build up, especially since 1981 and had suffered career consequences for his team. A grant was withdrawn in 1981.

The specific context was that it was two years after the Villach conference, and these are among the many efforts made by pro-action senators, senatorial staffers, environmental groups, etc. for action to happen, and this conference preparing for climate change really should be seen in the context of Villach and Bellagio, with people pulling every lever that they could think of.

What I think we can learn from this is that before Hansen’s testimony in 1988 the scene was already being set.

What happened next Hansen gave his testimony, and by 1989 organised denial and resistance to sensible policy action was on the rise. It has won, and we have blown our opportunities to avoid (or delay) dangerous climate change.

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

Xx

References

xx

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).

COMPARE WITH ON BARAK AND HEAT.

Also on this day: 

October 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1988 – the Guardian’s advertising dept is revolting

October 27, 1990 – denialist letter published (demolished days later)

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

October 27, 2002 – International CCS study tour begins

Categories
Science

October 26, 1979 – “Fate of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide and the Global Carbon Budget”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, October 26th, 1979,

“Fate of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide and the Global Carbon Budget” W. S. Broecker, T. Takahashi, H. J. Simpson, and T. -H. Peng 

Science 26 Oct 1979 Vol 206, Issue 4417 pp. 409-418 

DOI: 10.1126/science.206.4417.40

The fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere depends on the exchange rates of carbon between the atmosphere and three major carbon reservoirs, namely, the oceans, shallow-water sediments, and the terrestrial biosphere. Various assumptions and models used to estimate the global carbon budget for the last 20 years are reviewed and evaluated. Several versions of recent atmosphere-ocean models appear to give reliable and mutually consistent estimates for carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans. On the other hand, there is no compelling evidence which establishes that the terrestrial biomass has decreased at a rate comparable to that of fossil fuel combustion over the last two decades, as has been recently claimed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. 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 was that from the middle of the 1970s the evidence had begun to firm up the scientific consensus and opinion that carbon dioxide was building up very quickly, and that this would have really significant social, economic, political, military consequences, while there were debates about where some of these carbon dioxide molecules were actually ending up.

What I think we can learn from this – by the late 1970s, if you had time/access to scientific work, you could see trouble ahead. 

What happened next is that the debates about the science were ongoing, but within the general understanding that carbon dioxide was building up, and this would cause mayhem. This paper was relatively influential in the circles in which people moved, and it was excerpted in William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletter.

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

October 26, 1975 – “The Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins…

October 26, 1994 – “Global warming is a global warning”

October 26, 2001 – BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage mooted

October 26, 2023 – Happy One Year birthday, Energy Act

Categories
United Kingdom

October 25, 2017 – Dieter Helm’s Cost of Energy Review

Nine years ago, on this day, October 25th, 2017, Dieter Helm produces the “Cost of Energy Review 2017”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 407ppm. 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 was that we have been talking about taking “cost effective action” around energy and climate for decades without ever really getting the idea of what the costs of not mitigating are, partly because those costs are discounted, because it’s the future, and mostly because we think they’re going to fall on well, obviously other generations, but other colours, colours of people (NB for the sake of clarity – nobody is accusing Prof Helm of being racist or any other -ist).

So there’s always new reviews being done and criticisms of this or that technology and this or that strategy by the current government. 

The specific context was that we were seven years into a conservative regime, initially in coalition and now independent. CCS was on its ass, but being slowly revived. Coal had been pushed out of the energy mix almost entirely, but there were all sorts of debates, and still are all sorts of debates, of course, about where you put your money. 

What I think we can learn from this – we’re toast.

What happened next from this is that the controversies are endless. It is only with the benefit of hindsight, and not even really then that people “agree” or “disagree” on path x or y or z.

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

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

October 25, 1982 – Exxon and “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium

October 25, 2000 – local authorities in England make #climate promises. Well, that went well… #NottinghamDeclaration

October 25, 2006 – David Cameron launches “Can I have the Bill?” campaign for a Climate Act

October 25, 2000 – James Hansen writes a letter

October 25, 2021 – IRENA fanbois CCS

Categories
Australia

October 24, 1999 – utter horseshit about the Greenhouse Challenge

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, October 24th, 1999,

99/346 GREENHOUSE CHALLENGE DELIVERS RESULTS

An independent evaluation of Australia’s Greenhouse Challenge program has revealed that the voluntary program has been highly effective in achieving greenhouse gas emissions abatement.

Releasing the Greenhouse challenge Program Evaluation Report today, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, said participants in the program were set to achieve significant emissions savings in 2000.

“The review found that industrial end users will deliver 23.5 million tonnes (Mt) carbon dioxide equivalent or a 16 per cent reduction in emissions and electricity generators will deliver 5 Mt, a 3 per cent reduction by 2000”, Senator Minchin said.

“These emissions savings are being delivered by a broad and diverse range of companies that are participating in the Greenhouse Challenge. Challenge membership includes 98 per cent of electricity generators, distributors and transmitters; all cement manufacturers; all aluminium smelters and refiners; all steel manufacturers and 91 per cent of coal miners.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media/pressrel/SAH06%22

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 was that Australian governments had resisted carbon pricing and eventually had created, at the behest of the incumbent extractors, (miners and so on) a voluntary scheme, which would take the heat as a political issue, if not out of the atmosphere, so that everyone could pretend that something was being done, and the evil hand of the nanny state was not thwacking anyone. 

The trouble with these voluntary schemes is that they deliver nothing, but you have to pretend that they do.

So you stand there while other people bullshit about them, and you feel unclean and complicit because you didn’t speak up, and then you are complicit, and then it becomes that much harder to tell the truth when there’s an audience that might want to listen to the truth, such as the dilemma specific context. 

The specific context was that the greenhouse challenge was clearly not delivering, and the truth would be breaking through shortly, when in 2000 Robert Hill chided states and corporates.

What I think we can learn from this – voluntary schemes are, as Admiral Akbar would put it – a trap.

What happened next The Greenhouse Challenge was rebooted, and then died an ugly and unlamented death in 2004. 

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

Xx

References

xx

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: 

October 24, 1967 – Acid Rain

October 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

October 24, 1983 – EPA releases study on sea-level rise

October 24, 1991 – Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation launched

October 24, 2003 – Last flight of the Concorde