On this day, September 12 1958, the Times newspaper carried a letter about … the build up of carbon dioxide…
As Hamblin, in his excellent “Arming Mother Nature,” notes
Peter Ball noted that “it is time that our school of meteorologists should take their heads out of the sand and, short of experiment or other definite proof to the contrary, give the benefit of the doubt to the worst possibility.” There might not be enough evidence to make the link, but equally so, there was not enough evidence to deny the possibility. Why take such a definitive stand? Ball pointed out that meteorologists already believed humans were having an effect on the climate. The slight warming in polar regions over the past century, he said, was undeniable, and it most likely was a result of humans burning up fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Why was it so hard to accept that another human activity might have an effect as well?
(Hamblin, 2013: 124-5)
Peter Ball, letter to the Times, September 12 1958
On this day, September 10, 2007, shiny declarations met grim reality.
“THE gap between doing something about climate change and talking about it was revealed yesterday. Before the ink was dry on the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum’s Sydney declaration on climate change calling for a boost in global energy efficiency, the NSW scheme designed to do just that was crashing.”
Wilkinson, M. 2007. Going global, crashing locally. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 September.
On this day in 1971, Billy McMahon – until recently regarded as one of the worst Prime Ministers Australia had endured – was being dismissive about Paul Ehrlich, the American biologist and prominent doomster (Ehrlich was, in the long-run, right).
Mr HURFORD – I address my question to the Prime Minister. Has he read and/or heard of the views of Professor Ehrlich, an eminent ecologist, that, with the present growth in world population and taking into consideration the present known incapacity of the world to produce the necessary protein food, energy, etc. to support this population, the world is set on a disaster course?
Does he realise that these views are causing great concern in the community? Will he use the vast resources of the Commonwealth Government to appraise these views and either contradict them or notify the House as to how he can appropriately alter Government policy, and Government leadership in the world, to take into account the views of Professor Ehrlich?
Mr McMAHON»– I have not closely studied Professor Ehrlich’s statements but I have read comments about them in the Press «and» seen resumes of what he has said. I must say that I was not attracted by what he has said publicly. I well remember in my very early days at the university when 1 was studying economics that there were many other people who made similar forecasts «and» who turned out to be just as wrong. Where would we have been if we had taken notice of a most distinguished professor at the University of Sydney who said that we could not have a population much in excess of 15 million? We now know that we can take a vastly larger population than that «and» provide better living standards for people provided only that the Liberal Country Party coalition remains in government. I think the honourable member being a thoughtful person and ready to accept what I have said will know the extent to which I disagree with Professor Ehrlich.
On this day, 8 September 1990 a climate denialist called John Daly was spouting his soothing nonsense.
The worsening of the greenhouse effect is not inevitable, according to the author of The Greenhouse Trap, John Daly. Sea levels may not be rising, the planet may not be warming and studies indicate that the real increase in carbon-dioxide emission world-wide since 1850 is not the commonly reported 80 per cent but about 25 per cent, he says.
Mr Daly, a marine electronics engineer, spoke in Canberra on Saturday night [8 September] on what he calls a program of misinformation.
His recent exposure of inaccuracies in a schools’ brochure issued by the Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, led to its withdrawal.
Mr Daly quotes several eminent Australian scientists and many American ones as having compiled
evidence casting doubt on the existence of the greenhouse effect.
“I just want people to realise that there is some doubt,” Mr Daly said.
He says that in 20 years’ study of weather and science, particularly during the greenhouse effect’s “fashionable” period, the ’80s, he has found little to prove its existence.
On this day, September 7 1977, climate scientist Stephen Schneider is on the Johnny Carson show for the last time (he deviated from the script!)
“How many of you think the world is cooling?” That’s what Steve Schneider asked the studio audience of the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson in September 1977. And when the majority put their hands up, he explained that the recent cooling trend had only been short-term. Though the unscripted poll meant Steve wasn’t invited back to the programme, through the summer of that year he had brought climate science to US national TV. The appearances typified Steve’s efforts to bring climate change to the world’s notice – efforts that would later draw attention of a less desirable sort.
On this day, September 7, 1936, the last surviving member of the thylacine species, Benjamin, dies alone in its cage at the Hobart Zoo in Tasmania.
We are living through the sixth great extinction. And causing it. Hohum.
On this day the PPM was 310ish. Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
This is not a climate event, per se, but the same mentality that exterminated the tigers, and the Tasmanian Aborigines, is at play in the destruction of life on earth.
What happened next?
The extinctions have escalated.
And First Dog on the Moon had two excellent cartoons (the latter apologising for the former).
On this day, September 6, 2000, South Australian Senator Nick Minchin puts out a press release… I know, hold the front page, right…
But the context is that the first attempt to introduce a national level emissions trading scheme had just been defeated – with Nick Minchin largely responsible. This was the semi-gloating declaration of victory…
Below is a quote from the ever-reliable Jim Green, writing in “Green Left Weekly”
The federal Coalition government has taken a number of decisions to reassure big business that measures adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact.
Federal minister for industry, science and resources Nick Minchin outlined “specific commitments” to industry in a September 6 press release. They were:
● that a mandatory domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme will not be introduced “prematurely”;
● that the government “will involve industry from the inception through to the implementation phase of greenhouse gas abatement policies and strategies that impact on the industry”;
● that the government will work internationally “to get Australia the best possible greenhouse position”;
● that the government will assist in “minimising the burden of greenhouse measures on business through cost-effective actions”; and
● that the government will not “discriminate against particular projects or regions in greenhouse policies and programs”.
“What we are saying to industry is that in any decisions we make on greenhouse, we will work to maintain their international competitiveness. This is a framework for the government’s greenhouse policy processes. These are all common sense measures that will allow Australian industry to grow and meet our Kyoto commitments. It’s good news for industry, which has warmly welcomed the government’s commitments”, Minchin said.
The government’s “specific commitments” are noticeably lacking in specifics. Canberra’s primary aim is simply to reassure business interests that measures to curb escalating greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact on their activities.
Green, J. 2000. Business warms to greenhouse ‘commitments’. Green Left Weekly, 13 September.
On this day the PPM was 367.15 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
There is inertia in human systems, but that inertia is often helped on its way by intransigence. And that intransigence is not “stupid”. Underestimate the opponents of action at your peril…
What happened next?
Prime Minister John Howard got away with it for two more elections. Only in 2006-7 did this unravel for him.
On this day, September 5, 2005, then Labor opposition spokesperson for the environment Anthony Albanese (where have I read that name recently?) introduced a private member’s bill
And oh, look, he’s all in favour of climate triggers…
On this day the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 376.89 ppm Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
The context is that the Liberal National government of John Howard was enthusiastically boosting fossil exports, doing everything it could to slow renewables and to scupper international action. Labor were trying to make political capital out of this (and Albanese also – to be fair – seems like a decent human being who understands, on some level, what is at stake for our species).
Why this matters.
It doesn’t, does it? “We knew.” That can be our obituary. Smart enough to understand the dumb things we were doing, not smart enough to stop doing the dumb things.
What happened next?
We kept digging and burning, burning and digging. A small subset of that “we” got seriously rich doing it.
On this day, September 5 1990, the new-ish Australian Environment Minister, Ros Kelly, was trying to finish the work that a male colleague had started with endless self-promotion but not a lot of guile (this is a pattern that will recur, 20 years later). Here are two newspaper accounts
Targets to reduce greenhouse gases would strengthen the Australian economy, not cripple it, according to the Minister for the Environment, Ms Kelly.
Speaking to a Metal Trades Industry Association seminar, Ms Kelly made a preliminary sortie in the battle she will fight with her Cabinet colleagues next Monday to try to persuade them to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Ms Kelly said a report for her department by Deni Greene Consulting Services showed that a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2005 is not only possible, it is pretty easy to obtain”.
Industry groups have been lobbying the Government hard in recent days against setting a target to reduce emissions, which they argue could dramatically increase costs.
Garran, R. 1990. Kelly sees big savings in cutting greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 6 September, p. 5.
and
“In a speech yesterday (5th), Mrs Kelly called again for immediate action. She stressed the IPCC findings and said that “the sensible course of action is to do what we can, as soon as we can”.
A 20 per cent cut had been proved “not only possible (but) easy to obtain,” she said. “
Seccombe, M. 1990. Polluters put on the back-burner. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 September, p.1
On this day the PPM was 351.38. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
There was a time when – if you were optimistic (and perhaps naive?) you could imagine Federal politicians in Australia actually taking action that would have added up to a semi-adequate response to climate change. It was a brief time, one easily romanticised, but it did exist.
What happened next?
None of this came to pass. The fight back from the fossil lobby was supremely effective. Companies in Australia dug up and burnt/sold insane (I mean that literally) quantities of fossil fuels, with active and very enthusiastic support of the political classes and the bureaucrats. And here we are.
