Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

February 7, 1995 – Australian Treasurer claims UNFCCC treaty contains loopholes and get-out clauses

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 7th, 1995,

Treasurer Ralph Willis stated that the UNFCCC contained ‘let-out clauses’ and that the government might decide that a less ambitious target was appropriate Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 7

February 1995, 582 (Ralph Willis, Treasurer).

The Government also confirmed yesterday that it would be forced to renege on international targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the turn of the century.

The Treasurer, Mr Willis, told Parliament the Government would examine the “let-out clauses” of the United Nations agreement to stabilise greenhouse gas emission levels to 1990 levels by 2000.

“Those are not unimportant clauses (and) they have to be taken into account when considering whether we need absolutely to tie ourselves to achieving the (targets),” he said. “(But) we are concerned with ensuring that Australia does everything in its power to try to live up to its obligations to the convention.”

The backdown would be highly embarrassing for the Government in the lead-up to the International Convention on Climate Change in Berlin next month

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that very day, there was a round table about a carbon tax. Ralph Willison was in Parliament and was busy saying that there were get out clauses in the UNFCCC document that Australia would investigate and, if necessary, exploit so much for Australia as a middle power. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there is no bit of paper that anyone will sign that won’t be ignored if it becomes inconvenient to them.

What happened next

There was no carbon tax. There was finally a carbon price in 2012 that didn’t last very long. Tiny Abbott abolished it. The emissions kept climbing, and we’re absolutely doomed. 

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.

Categories
Australia

February 6, 1969 – Senate Select Committee warned about CO2 build up by Professor Harry Bloom

The text below is from Royce Kurmelovs’ book Slick. You can read more about Bloom (and also the South Australian politician Richard Gun, who was the first parliamentarian to raise the question of C02 build-up, in early 1970), here.

Fifty six years ago, on this day, February 6th, 1969, Australian senators investigating air quality were warned about the carbon dioxide build-up problem by a Tasmanian chemistry professor, Harry Bloom..

But it was 6 February 1969, at a hearing in Hobart, when they heard from University of Tasmania professor Harry Bloom.

Prof Bloom was a man cursed with unique foresight. He would later carry out the first tests showing the Derwent River was contaminated by heavy metals but would largely be ignored until independent testing confirmed his assessment. It was an experience he would unfortunately be familiar with when he called attention to the catastrophic risk posed by climate change.

“Carbon dioxide build-up in the world has been calculated to be such as to be able to produce serious changes, not only in climatic conditions but also in health conditions all over the world in not too many years, say 50 to 100 years. I think the whole situation is one which needs very desperate and immediate action. I think we have to know what is at present in the atmosphere, and one ought to do something about it.”

Kurmelovs, R. (2024) Slick

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Senate Committee on Air Pollution had been agreed against the backdrop of growing concern about air quality in cities and awareness of issues both local and global.

What we can learn is that intelligent people and academics – the two are not always the same – were paying attention to the scientific literature and becoming informed about the carbon dioxide build up problem in the late 1960s, which is earlier than many think.

What happened next. In September ‘69 the air pollution report was released. It included significant mention of carbon dioxide as a problem. There was no serious legislative action – well that’s possibly a little unfair – there was on some things. And over the coming year or two departments of environment were set up, ministers appointed – you know, the usual stuff…

More about Bloom –

Source – https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/261606396

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: 

February 6, 1995 – Australian business versus a carbon tax

February 6, 2001: ExxonMobil Lobbyist Calls on White House to Remove Certain Government Climate Scientists

Categories
AFrica

 February 5, 1986 – Thomas Sankara Imperialism is the arsonist of our forests and savannas 

Thirty nine years ago, on this day, February 5th, 1986 President of Burkina Faso  Thomas Sankara dropped some truth bombs in Paris.

This struggle to defend the trees and Forests is above all a struggle against imperialism. . Imperialism is the arsonist of our forests and savannas,”  

Shttps://www.marxists.org/archive/sankara/1986/february/05.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Thomas Sankara was a throwback to the 1960s and 70s, military fatigue, fiery language. And here we have fiery languages, 100% accurate.

What I think we can learn from this is that people on the pointy end of capitalism, imperialism, and expropriation don’t need textbooks or PhDs to explain to them that they are getting shafted and that the planet is getting shafted. They just need their eyes. And they have them.

What happened next Sankara was killed in a bloody military coup the following year. And that kind of rhetoric about imperialism and expropriation, exploitation, devastation was not really apparent in the Brundtland Commission. Oddly enough.

For more on Sankara, see this 2020 piece on Verso’s blog.

Categories
Russia

 February 5, 1993 – Space Based Energy experiment takes place

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 5th, 1993,

If you happened to be looking at the sky in Europe on a cold night on February 5 1993, there is a chance you could have seen a dim flash of light. That flash came from a Russian space mirror experiment called Znamya-2. Znamya-2 was a 20-metre reflective structure much like aluminium foil (Znamya means “banner” in Russian), unfurled from a spacecraft which had just undocked from the Russian Mir space station. Its goal was to demonstrate solar energy could be reflected from space to Earth. https://theconversation.com/reflectors-in-space-could-make-solar-farms-on-earth-work-for-longer-every-day-220554#:~:text=Each%20time%20a%20reflector%20passes,its%20hours%20of%20electricity%20generation.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been various proposals about using space based satellites to capture the enormous amounts of the sun’s energy and redirect it to specific points on Earth, space based mirrors, etc, not as weapons for that too, but for limitless, reliable energy generation and space based energy satellites are a fascinating thing. 

See also the novels The Dynostar Menace (1975) and also Quatermass by Nigel Kneale that came out in 1979 [interesting looking podcast here] and the Children of the Pylons.” 

What I think we can learn from this We dream of limitless “free” energy, but there are some upfront charges

What happened next 

Ripped from last month’s headlines…

“China plans to build enormous solar array in space — and it could collect more energy in a year than ‘all the oil on Earth’”

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.

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

February 4, 1998 – Ombudsman on ABARE and its dodgy af #climate modelling

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 4th, 1998, greenies ‘win’ – an admission that a state-funded outfit shouldn’t have excluded them (which it did so it could push out economic modelling bullshit unfettered).

Ombudsman releases ABARE investigation report

Commonwealth Ombudsman Philippa Smith said the ACF complaint about ABARE raised important issues about how government agencies developed and consulted on public policy. 

In June 1997, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) complained to the Ombudsman because the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) refused to waive the $50,000 per annum fee required to join a steering committee it convened to provide a ‘sounding board’ and data and technical advice for its GIGABARE climate change model.

GIGABARE and MEGABARE are climate change economic models which analyse the economic effects of greenhouse gas emission policy.

Ms Smith said: ‘In my opinion ABARE’s climate change modelling is best characterised as a public good and relates to important public policy issues.

‘Any Steering Committee or consultative process with these responsibilities should strive for a balance of interests and technical skills rather than being a mechanism for fund raising.’

Ms Smith said the case also highlighted the importance of planning and protocols in the receipt, acknowledgment and use of external funding or sponsorship by agencies allowing outside involvement in developing important public policy issues.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE) had been putting out bullshit numbers about the cost of climate mitigation thanks to its ridiculous MEGABARE economic model, the Australian Conservation Foundation had tried to get on the board overseeing mega bar without paying the 50k a bar had said no. ACF had complained to the ombudsman, and the report came out on this day. 

What I think we can learn from this is that economic modeling exists to make astrology look respectable, as per, John Kenneth Galbraith, these are just made up bullshit numbers, but once they are in an official report and then spouted by the minister or the Prime Minister, they take on a solidity that they do not deserve, and the people trying to stop anything from happening know this, which is why it’s one of their favorite techniques.

What happened next ABARE and other outfits kept peddling utter fucking Tosh, and the newspapers kept publicizing it because it was good, cheap, free copy.

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.

Categories
Podcasts

Podcast review: Every breath you take, Alice Bell on Cursed Object podcast

So, following on from review of Rebecca John talking about Charles Keeling and the Air Pollution Foundation on the History of California podcast, here’s some brief thoughts on Alice Bell on the Curated Object.

If you know of podcasts that deal – even tangentially – with the history of man-made climate change (research, politics, etc), then let me know.

Alice Bell, author of Our Biggest Experiment, was recently a guest on the Cursed Object podcast.

The objects she brought were

a) a jar of London air (Euston Road)

b) a 1989 edition of the Radio Times which was all about Being Green (I’ve seen that issue, it’s extraordinary).

Bell was a confident and engaging guest, and the whole episode is worth your time.

Three things stood out for me, but your mileage will vary.

  • Bell’s point about the intertwining of energy and democracy – e.g Plug plot  Riots (there’s also all that Carbon Democracy stuff by Timothy Mitchell, I don’t remember is she mentioned it. She probably did.
  • The point that people who went climbing mountains and glaciers in the 19th century left, ah, “spoor” which is now back with us, thanks to all the melting.
  • A nice anecdote about how, when she was doing walking tours of London’s climate history (Shell, DECC etc) then different people would turn up to take part with their own stories – one couple whose first date, in 1947, had had to be moved because the smog was so bad the busses weren’t running (before the 1956 Clean Air Act, the response to the deadly December 1952 smog, air quality was astonishingly bad. It still is, just less visible now).
Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 3, 1995 – Senator McMullan sows the CEDA of our doom..

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1995, a Labor Senator – and I hope you are sitting down when you read this – assures business-types that “the economy” [i.e. corporate profits] is a higher priority than reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

 In a largely unreported speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Melbourne on Friday [3rd February 1995] , Senator McMullan said: “The levy will be dealt with on the basis of its appropriateness as a measure to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rather than on the amount of revenue it might raise.” “What we need to avoid is any situation where we unilaterally place a wide range of export and import-competing industries at a competitive disadvantage without actually contributing effectively to reducing global or domestic greenhouse emissions,” he added.

Gill, P. 1995. Official warns of small cut in gas with carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 7 February, p.3. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was an almighty battle going on within the Keating government about a carbon tax and the opponents of said tax were trying to ally shop and venue shop and water down and weaken as much as they could. This speech to an economics business think tank/talking shop called CEDA should be seen in that context.

What I think we can learn from this is that introducing a new order of things, as per Machiavelli, is extremely difficult, even if it’s urgent and important. Perhaps especially if it’s urgent and important. 

What happened next: The carbon tax was defeated. Emissions trading schemes were defeated. Finally, Julia Gillard in 2011 got one through. But oh my, what a shitshow. 

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: 

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Activism

February 2nd is Groundhog Day!

Well, do you feel lucky, Punxsutawney Phil?

The context was…. Here we go again and again and again, day after day, not learning anything. And if that movie existed in a way that Bill Murray never learned anything, it would be a short movie, and no one would watch it. But the question is, how do we learn?

See also smugosphere, emotacycle.

What I think we can learn from this is that we don’t learn.

What happened next

Bill Murray’s star is somewhat tarnished by credible accusations of quite shitty behavior. 

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: 

Categories
Academia United Kingdom

February 1, 2005 – “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” conference begins

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 1st, 2005,

… an international conference called “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases”[17] examined the link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, and the 2 °C (3.6 °F) ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming. Previously, this had generally been accepted as being 550 ppm.[18]

The conference took place under the United Kingdom’s presidency of the G8, with the participation of around 200 ‘internationally renowned’ scientists from 30 countries. It was chaired by Dennis Tirpak and hosted by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, from 1 February to 3 February.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Symposium_on_avoiding_dangerous_climate_change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Blair, neck deep in the Iraq War and his special bromance with George  W. Bush was very keen that the G7 in Gleneagles that year not talk about said war. So there was the Make Poverty History, bullshit. (And by bullshit, I don’t mean the sincere efforts by the NGOs and individuals, I mean UK Government.)

And there was also the climate agenda, so the academic conference at Exeter University must be seen in the context of avoiding talking about Iraq. The conference was held over three days, lots of fine words, including words about carbon capture and storage. It’s not so clear to me that anyone talked about how this was already a 20 year old agenda, if you put the starting gun at Villach..

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been talking about avoiding dangerous climate change, and we haven’t. And now we are “coping” with dangerous climate change – that  would have to be the title Or “bracing for the impact of the unavoided and now unavoidable existential threat climate change.” I don’t know what you would call it. 

What happened next:  More people died in the Iraq War of choice. Blair finally went in whenever it was 2007.  And no one ever was held to account for what they did.

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: 

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climateFeb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker

Categories
Activism Australia

January 31, 2009 – Climate Action Summit

Sixteen years ago, on this day, January 31st, 2009,

 From January 31 to February 3, 2009, over 150 community based climate action groups and more than 500 people came together in Canberra to talk, debate, strategise and take action on climate change at Australia’s Climate Action Summit. 

http://www.foe.org.au/australias-climate-action-summit

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from late 2006 onwards, there had been a great deal of awareness/alarm about climate change and its impacts in Australia and various actions in various places. By late 2008 it was obvious that the Rudd Government was doing a tremendous amount of backsliding and caving in to vested interests. 

And so the Climate Action Summit was held in a period where there was a fragile elite consensus that wasn’t really worth a bucket of warm spit, and citizens were trying to do it for themselves. 

What I think we can learn from this is that citizens can’t do it for themselves. They have to somehow create irresistible pressure on elected representatives, on states, on bureaucracies. But this is much easier said than actually done. 

What happened next

Climate change, oddly, continued to be an open sore, kind of permanently, but especially until the end of 2011 when Julia Gillard managed to get climate legislation through the parliament.

Various climate action summits and efforts at NVDA and efforts at public pressure have continued ever since, and here we are – fubarred. 

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: 

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind