Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Predatory delay Propaganda

October 2, 2014 – Low emission technologies on their way, says Minerals Council of Australia

On this day, 9 years ago, yet another promise of imminent “low emissions technologies” was made…

2014 INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP TO DEVELOP LOW EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES Statement from Brendan Pearson, Chief Executive, Minerals Council of Australia The Minerals Council of Australia today announced the establishment of an industry-led Leadership Roundtable for the development of Low Emissions Technologies for Fossil Fuels. The Roundtable will be chaired by Mr Stewart Butel, Managing Director of Wesfarmers Resources Limited, Chair of COAL21* and a Director of the Minerals Council of Australia. Membership will include senior representatives from the coal, oil and gas, and power generation industries, research organisations, federal and state governments and the Global CCS Institute.The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that although Tony Abbott was now Prime Minister (though not for much longer, it turned out!), the fossil industry still felt the need to say the right things.

What I think we can learn from this

Endless promises. It would be funny if it were not tragi.

What happened next

The usual – nothing substantive.

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

October 1, 1997 – Global greens gather in Melbourne, diss Australian #climate policy

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 1, 1997, an international conference on Environmental Justice took place in Melbourne. 

More than 400 academics and environmental activists from 30 countries attending an Environmental Justice conference at the University of Melbourne heard on Wednesday [1st October] that much of the Federal Government’s greenhouse gas research had been funded by the fossil-fuel industry.

Dent, S. 1997. Greens see red on gas. Herald-Sun, 3 October.

[Environmental Justice: Global Ethics for the 21st Century : International Academic Conference of the University of Melbourne, Australia, October 1st-3rd 1997.]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.6=5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by 1997 it was obvious that the international negotiations were not going very well. The Kyoto conference which was then impending, was likely to have a pretty watered-down, scientifically inadequate agreement on emissions reductions. There had already been a “Countdown to Kyoto” conference in Canberra. Meanwhile the Howard government had been busy slicing and dicing the CSIRO and other potential problems.

What I think we can learn from this

The hand-wringing about fossil- fuel funding can be overdone. “Intellectuals’ ‘ have always sucked up to power structures, be they the church, the state or corporations – those people with the money, who can dish out the prestige and the cushy living. Don’t be surprised.

What happened next

The fossil fuel gang had continued to dominate. They have tightened their grip in most ways like an anaconda. But still occasionally some academic will try and tell the truth and will get publicly punished for it as a lesson to the others

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
Activism United States of America

September 30, 1969 -US activist publication mentions climate change

Fifty four years ago, on this day, September 30, 1969, a US alternative paper The Spectator (as opposed to the British right-wing one!)  ran a story about environmental problems, including build up of carbon dioxide and the effects it might have…

30 Sep 1969 Bruce Williamson squib in Spectator mentions climate, channels Moynihan line on “goodbye New York”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by late 1969 and in the aftermath of Daniel Moynihan’s comments people were familiar with the problem of carbon dioxide enough to be make knowing jokes.

What I think we can learn from this – the question of carbon dioxide build-up was well enough understood by the late 1960s to be the object of squibs and comic asides.

What happened next

In late January 1970 a documentary called “And on the 8th Day” appeared on British television, helping people understand what was actually at stake.

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
United States of America

September 29, 2000 – On campaign trail, George Bush says power plants will require carbon dioxide cuts

Twenty three years ago, on this day, September 29, 2000, George Bush, trying to shore up his vote among Republicans who cared about conserving a habitable planet (they did exist, back then), makes a promise that he wouldn’t keep.

 “We will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Bush was in a tight race with Al Gore. Ralph Nader was taking votes maybe more from Gore than him, but Bush needed to make the right noises so that centrist Republicans and independents who cared about climate might consider voting for him. Bush’s daddy had, in 1988, made similar “I will act on the greenhouse effect” promises and then done fuck all.

What I think we can learn from this as per Nick Tomalin, “they lie they lie they lie,” especially at elections.

What happened next

When de facto president Cheney took office he shat all over this fantasised about building new power stations and pulled the US out of the Kyoto negotiations

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
Activism Cultural responses

September 28, 2008 – “Wake Up Freak Out” posted online

Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 28, 2008, a brilliant and too-relevant-for-words animation was unleashed on the world.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was people were indeed waking up and freaking out but not fast enough and in large enough numbers to make a difference. And they couldn’t join groups because they weren’t any decent functioning groups anymore, just various sects and zombie repertoire outfits.

What I think we can learn from this – Leo Murray is insanely talented.

What happened next

The climate movement imploded at the end of 2009 and into 2010. And we still don’t really have a movement, just a bunch of groups, rising and falling, unaware of any of the history, of what is needed. Or aware of what is needed but unable to do it. Because, reasons.

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 Kyoto Protocol

September 28, 2000 – Liberal MP goes full cooker on Kyoto as threat to sovereignty.

Twenty three years ago, on this day, September 28, 2000, an Australian Liberal MP went full “black helicopters” during hearings about the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed and was – at least nominally – due to ratify sometime (it didn’t until 2007).

“The Lavoisier Group’s ranting about the risk of invasion by Kyoto eco-fascists has its echo in comments from the Liberal MP and Treaties Committee chairperson, Andrew Thomson. During public hearings of the committee last year, Thomson wondered aloud whether Australia would find itself at the mercy of international greenhouse inspection committees dominated by “hostile” developing countries, and speaking on ABC radio on September 28, (2000) Thomson questioned the “strange notion of inspections like having Richard Butler go into Iraq”.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s190290.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the anti-Kyoto anti-climate nutters occasionally let slip in public the full depths of their batshit craziness. Howard had, it was already clear, made up his mind that the Kyoto protocol would not be ratified (that was leaked in September of 1998).

What I think we can learn from this is that climate denial will take you to some odd places.

What happened next

The climate denial keeps going to odd places while we in the reality-based community had to deal with reality. Andrew Thomson’s political career if you can call it that ended as these careers are wont to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Thomson_(Australian_politician)

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
International processes

September 27, 1988 – UNEP should become world eco-regime

Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 27, 1988, the USSR’s Foreign Minister gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly.

“Other prominent politicians also made important statements. Eduard Schevardnadze, then Soviet Foreign Minister, made a stronger speech to the UNGA on 27 September 1988, where he proposed that UNEP should be transformed into ‘an environmental council capable of taking effective decisions to ensure ecological security’.”

Page 35 Paterson, M (1996)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. and

The context was that everyone was talking about climate – it was “one of those moments.” And the issue was still fresh. What shevardnadze was proposing was simply what had been proposed in 1972 for a stronger UNEP rather than a small research and cajoling outfit. It was defeated in 1972, and ignored in 1988. And here we are.

What I think we can learn from this is that the necessary institutions are unlikely to come into existence without out and much bigger bottom-up effort. But it’s hard for the bottom-up people to campaign for a “big institution “which will be faithless and which will treat them like dirt.

What happened next

UNEP stayed small and the United States contained and controlled the treaty process.

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 Kyoto Protocol

September 26, 1998 – Howard decision only to ratify Kyoto if US does leaks.

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 26, 1998, the Canberra Times had a good old-fashioned scoop, thanks to a leak … . That was that the government of John Howard had decided – despite having extorted an insanely generous deal at Kyoto, and having signed it in April, they would not submit it to Parliament for ratification unless (and this was vanishingly unlikely) the USA did.

Sept 1998 – Howard government decision not to ratify Kyoto unless America does. Leaks on 26 September (Scorcher p. 102)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian government had secured an eye-wateringly generous deal at Kyoto but that still was not going to be suitable to Howard because once you’re in the ratchet it can keep ratcheting. And it would lead on to having to do more and more over time. Howard was on the record as saying that the Australian should never have even signed up to the UNFCCC. The leak, the leak was in the context of an impending federal election.

What I think we can learn from this

This is “clever politics”- you are kicking it into the long grass but you are not saying “never.” And you are hinge-ing it on other people’s actions, so everyone can get mad at them instead. It’s a bit like the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket picking on Private Pyle. 

What happened next 

George Bush, once he had been selected president, pulled the US out of Kyoto. Howard waited for another 16 months before confirming that Australia would not ratify. He did this on World Environment Day. For the lulz.

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

September 25, 2003 – Bob Carr “strikes greenhouse deal” with European investors

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 25, 2003, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, who had been aware of the greenhouse effect as a problem since 1971, keeps going in his efforts to make the state a hub of carbon offsets/trading and so on …

“Carr strikes greenhouse deal with European investors”

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s954007.htm [link now dead]

PM – Thursday, 25 September , 2003 Reporter: Peta Donald

(David Kemp slaps it down – not carbon trading.)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Federal Government of Australia had shown time and again that it was not interested in carbon trading or making any international linkages that weren’t bullshit photo-ops with George Bush. This was not to stop the New South Wales government and Bob Carr from pursuing such deals which he did…

What I think we can learn from this is that in a Commonwealth system there are multiple points of entry and pressure, and there is a back-and-forth between States and Federal Government as there is between federal and international systems. When one is failing the other is supposed to pick up the slack and vice versa. That’s the theory -sometimes both are failing …

What happened next – nothing much came of it, it all just kind of petered out, as far as I remember (if you know different, drop me a line!).

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
Activism Australia

September 24, 1989 – Petra Kelly disses the Australian Prime Minister

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 24, 1989, German activist and member of parliament Petra Kelly opined on Australian government policy

WHEN BOB HAWKE cried at a press conference in 1984, his face was plastered all over German newspapers.

That was about the last time matters of any relevance to Australian domestic politics rated even a centimetre of German news space.

That is, until Bob Brown and his team of green independents made it on to the Tasmanian Government benches in May.

According to the founder of the West German Green Party, Petra Kelly, the greens’ success in Tasmania was widely reported – even in the smallest German village.

“I think Bob Brown is probably the most well-known Australian in Europe,” Ms Kelly said from her hotel in Adelaide last week.

“He’s much more widely known than Mr Hawke.”

In Australia for an “ecopolitics” conference at the University of Adelaide, Petra Kelly has attracted media attention for describing Bob Hawke’s moves to capture the environment vote as just “green cosmetic surgery”.

Mealey, E. 1989. Petra sees green over Aussie Politics. Sun Herald, 24 September.

(Petra – the diminutive name – wouldn’t be used for Bob or Andrew. But tbf, has been used for “Boris”)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Petra Kelly was a big star from the German environmental movement and antinuclear movement. Adelaide was a good place to do this stuff and I totally missed it. I was not plugged into those networks and it pisses me off but it is what it is. At that time, btw, everyone in Australia was running around talking about the “greenhouse effect.”

What I think we can learn from this is that the mass media will use diminutive names, first names for women, in a way that they would not for men 

That there were linkages between German and Australian movements and learning; see Christopher Rootes’ article about this which appeared in Environmental Politics.

What happened next is that Petra Kelly died in 1992 – it was probably murder-suicide or possibly an agreed pact we can never know. And Hawke made grand promises about climate action that, well, never got kept. 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.