Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

On this day, May 9 2009, the Australian newspaper carried a report that would surprise no close watcher of climate policymaking at the time.

Kevin Rudd had become Prime Minister of Australia in December 2007 with a promise and a mandate to take action on climate change. There followed a bewildering array of reports and documents (interestingly, economist Ross Garnaut was quickly sidelined because he lacked sufficient enthusiasm for “compensating” industries who were supposed to be changing their ways.

By the end of 2008 it was clear to activists (especially those who interrupted Rudd’s speech at the National Press Club) that Rudd’s basic idea was to give the rich and powerful whatever they wanted. That was the plan. And it got even worse in 2009, when he sent his climate minister on a “charm offensive.”

Steketee, M. 2009. Cool compromise. The Australian, 9 May, p.18.

WHEN Penny Wong did the rounds of environmental and business groups last week, they suddenly found her more receptive to their arguments. What were the key things they needed to be able to support the Government’s climate change package, she asked. The Climate Change Minister had a fair idea because she had heard their demands often enough, but this time she wasn’t fending them off. Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan and Wong already had decided on a new strategy to try to get the Government out of the political bunker.

Business demanded – and got – a delay to the start date of the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. More was to follow…

Why this matters

In the absence of an enraged and engaged civil society, capable of more than spasms of emotion and outrage, then of COURSE “governance” is going to mean little more than doing whatever powerful industries allow. It’s easy to beat up on Rudd (and, actually, hits that sweet spot of being not only easy, but accurate and deserved), but where is the bold climate movement able to force better? Watch this space – the 2022 Federal elections in Australia may leave a bunch of climate-action-minded independents in a position of strength. Party like its early 2011 all over again!!

What happened next

Rudd couldn’t get his legislation over the line in June. When he came to try again in November he also couldn’t. Surprisingly the Greens weren’t going to vote for something they viewed as worse than useless. And then it all fell apart, with Julia Gillard left to pick up the pieces. And then… oh, it’s so exhausting and outlandish I can’t bring myself to type it up

Categories
United Kingdom

May 8, 1972 – “Teach-in for Survival” in London

Guest post by Roger of superb Green History website.

On this day, May 8, 50 years ago, students at Queen Elizabeth College, London University held a one day “Teach-in for Survival” inspired by the Ecologist publication of the “Blueprint for Survival” special issue in January 1972. They managed to get some quite high profile people to give talks and with minimal publicity the numbers booking to attend snowballed and the venue had to be switched to the Great Hall at Imperial College – over 500 people came on the day. Read the full story below.

Why This Matters

The Ecologist Blueprint had caused quite a stir in the chattering classes and even in the popular press. The students wanted to explore whether technology could reverse the negative trends (pollution, population, resource depletion, and ecological stress leading to human societal collapse) that Blueprint identified, and also to look for opportunities for practical action. In the event it became clear that only bottom up system change driven by grass roots action to transform the social political and economic system could avert the coming disaster.

What Happened Next

After an inspiring day the students returned to take their exams and get on with life. A few spent the next 50 years going on protest marches about this and that, or telling people how the ecological problems were getting much worse, or trying to get elected to get environmental action up the political agenda – completely forgetting the main lesson from the Teach-in and from Blueprint: that the changes needed require a completely different social system, not engagement with the old system.

And here we are, still making the same mistakes and time has so nearly run out.

You can read the full article on which this blog post is based here.

Categories
UNFCCC United States of America

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

On this day, May 8 1992, after more tense negotiations in New York, the Americans agreed to a text that would be signed down in Rio at the Earth Summit in June.

All through the “negotiations” had basically played chicken, threatening not to come to Rio if the treaty to be signed there included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries.

So, Michael Howard then the British Environment Minister had flown over to negotiate the surrender by the French/Europeans on the questions of targets and timetables. The text to be ceremoniously sighed would be a framework convention rather than one with any teeth. 

And you could argue that that actually is the end of the international “policy window”, in the middle of 1992. Yes, you have have the flim-flam and the theatre of Rio and you have various states ratifying, speeches but the end of anything substantive was May 8th, a day that would live in infamy if our species had two brain cells to rub together.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

May 7, 1966 – scientist warns public about carbon dioxide build-up…

On May 7 1966, Roger Revelle the noted American scientist had a story in the popular news magazine Saturday Review on carbon dioxide and the oceans.

In it Revelle wrote

“Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment which, if adequately documented, may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather and climate. We must not forget, however, that even a relatively small rise in the average annual temperature of the atmosphere might be accompanied by other more serious changes, for example, shifts in the position or the width of belts of low rainfall.”

To be clear – he was not yet saying “watch out”, as others soon would be. Just before this quote he wrote

“In general, our attitude toward the changing content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is being brought about by our own actions should probably contain more curiosity than apprehension.”

Why this matters

We need to remember that people have been warning about the build-up of carbon dioxide for an extremely long time as a potential problem.

Revelle, we should say was one of the founders of the climate issue having written with Hans Seuss about the way in which the oceans might not be soaking up as much co2 as the dogma suggested, and having hired Charles David Keelng whom he found very irritating. (see, Joshua Weiner’s book) 

What happened next 

Revelle kept researching and writing. Other people kept researching and writing. The climate issues slowly, painfully, worked its way up the policy agenda, but didn’t really get down until 1988.

Categories
Denial UNFCCC United States of America

May 6, 1997 – The so-called “Cooler Heads” coalition created

On this day, May 6 1997 25 years ago, the “Cooler Heads – see what they did there? – coalition” was announced, with such noted climate scientists, as Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg. The leader was… Myron Ebell, of Exxon…

Here’s a great summary on DeSmog Blog

The Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC) was formed on May 6, 1997, under the direction of the National Consumer Coalition—a project of the now-defunct Consumer Alert—“out of concern that the American people were not being informed about the economic impact of proposals to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The CHC is now backed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), as noted on CHC‘s “About” page which states that the website is “paid for and maintained by” CEI. [1], [18]

Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), was listed as the “group leader” when the the Cooler Heads Coalition was initially formed, and appears to maintain an important role. [18]

The context was that the Kyoto meeting at which emissions reductions for rich countries would be on the agenda – was coming. And CHC would, with an international membership, would enable opponents of it in the United States to point to some sort of international coalition of actors

By calling themselves the “Cooler Heads”, they are claiming the high intellectual ground and instantly mocking their opponents or framing their opponents as hotheads and alarmist – it’s a nicely chosen title. Some PR flak probably got a promotion for it.

Why this matters

We need to think in terms of a constant flux, push and counter push among actors, the actors who were trying to legitimise their own side and delegitimise their opponents, as we saw with the Unabomber thing the Heartland outfit did. This is a battle for hearts and minds and legitimacy.

What happened next

Lomborg kept publishing and having been members of these sorts of coalitions since. And the carbon dioxide continues to accumulate.

Categories
Science Scientists

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

On May 5 1953, yes, 1953, The West Australian newspaper had a short piece with Gilbert Plass, warning the American Geophysical Union about the build-up of. carbon dioxide…

Image from Brad Johnson’s excellent site

Plass was a geochemist who had read Guy Callendar and understood what he was talking about.

Why this matters

Let’s not pretend that 1988 was the first time anyone heard about climate change. That said, this sort of “we were warned” thing can be a little bit unfair. Because there are all sorts of potential threats, potential problems in the world. And if we responded to all of them, instantly with alarm, we’d never get anything done.

But certainly, I think by the late 60s, early 70s, we did know enough to be concerned. And we didn’t act in accordance with that concern. And here we are.

What happened next?

Plass kept on for a little while, and even attended the 1963 Conservation Foundation meeting in New York. But he didn’t do further climate work. There’s a good account of him in Alice Bell’s “Our Greatest Experiment,” btw.

Categories
Denial Uncategorized United States of America

May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face…

On this day, May 4th in 2012, the far-right Heartland Institute displayed an entirely sane and rational billboard with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber pictured on it…

Classy, eh?

This met with howls of outrage and probably marks the beginning of the end or the middle of the end for the Heartland Institute as a useful-to-the-right player. Big donors to it fled….

Why this matters

What happens time and again is these right wing flak/flank organisations get overconfident, believe their own publicity get captured by the culture warriors and overplay their hand have to be disowned by the less-swivel-eyed but equally (more) ecocidal outfits.

Then the constituent parts of the machine are broken down and reconstituted. You saw it with the Global Climate Coalition by about 1996 (with their attacks on Ben Santer) – they were becoming a reputational risk for some of the more mainstream and cautious members. You see it with the Tasman Institute in Australia, and other outfits. Culture warrior-dom contains the seeds of its own destruction, to get all dialectical?

What happened next?

Kaczynski is still in jail, will die there.

The Heartland Institute is still around, heckling the Pope and spamming science teachers.

Categories
Australia United States of America

May 3, 1990 – From Washington to Canberra, the “greenhouse effect” has elites promising…

On this day, May 3 1990, different things happened around the world that are worth remembering.

First, in Washington DC a whole bunch of legislators had got together and announced that there should be a global Marshall Plan for Climate and Environment blah, blah, blah. It finished on the 2nd, so I am cheating (but already had two posts yesterday, so sue me.) It was reported on the 3rd in the New York Times.

The usual well-meaning words sincerely meant as well, but not connected to a set of social forces that could make it so.

Meanwhile, in Australia, probably more or less the same time, The Primary Industries Minister John Kerin, was telling the Australian Mining Industry Council Annual General Meeting annual that there was a good chance of a of a referendum allowing the federal to Commonwealth Government to gain powers over environmental issues from the States. This would have scared the bejesus out of The AMIC people.

Seccombe, M. 1990. Chance for green referendum, says Kerin. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 May. CANBERRA: Public support for Federal Government power to make national environment laws had grown to the point where a referendum could now succeed, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, said yesterday. Mr Kerin raised again the need for the Commonwealth to wrest power from the States – first broached by the then-Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, last year – at the annual seminar of the Australian Mining Industry Council in Canberra.

It was not to be Australia remains a quarry with the state attached.

What happens next?

Well, the global Marshall Plan idea got filed in the circular file. Noise towards a referendum got quietened down, and the whole issue of climate got kicked into the “ecologically sustainable development process” long grass. And AMIC a couple of years later became so toxic that it had to change its leader and rebrand but not until it had helped in defeating another carbon tax proposal…

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Technophilia United Kingdom

May 2, 2012 – CCS is gonna save us all. Oh yes.

On this day (May 2nd) in 2012 the UK government announced a “Carbon Capture andStorage” Cost Reduction Taskforce which would

“to advise the government and industry on the steps needed to reduce the cost of CCS, so that it could compete with other low carbon technologies in the 2020s.” (see also this press release).

CCS has long been the get-out-of-jail-free card for industry (esp oil and gas) and a lot of time and money has been spent on it. But it still ain’t here. Maybe this time will be different…

Why this matters

We need to remember that these salvationary technologies have fallen over repeatedly, and ask ourselves “gee, maybe we could focus on, you know, just using hella lot less energy?”

What happened next

CCS fell over, got picked up and dusted off, and is again flavour of the month.

Categories
Australia

May 2, 2009 – Australian Liberals warned of wipe-out if seen as “anti-climate action” #auspol

On this day, in 2009, it was reported that Australian Liberal senators were telling their industry backers that secret polling had them being wiped out if they didn’t say yes to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.”

Taylor, L. 2009. Turnbull must bridge Coalition split on ETS. The Australian, 2 May, p. 18. SENIOR Liberals are telling industry their internal polling shows the Coalition losing up to 10 seats in the House of Representatives and four in the Senate in a double dissolution election triggered by their rejecting Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme

The context is this Rudd had come to power in December 2007. promising that he would do something about climate change after the inaction and resistance of John Howard for 11 years. Rudd’s something amounted to a so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction scheme.

The :iberals were on the hook because they had agreed to an emissions produce reduction scheme of their own in the run up to the 2007 election campaign. And so it would look churlish if they did not support. Rudd knew this and was busy sticking the knife in

Significant portions of the Liberal Party and even more significant portions of the National Party which is the other part of the Coalition were not convinced by the climate science and are still not

Why this matters

We need to remember that even periods of so-called bipartisan consensus are fragile, and that there are those who will, until (even after?) the waters close over their heads/they all die of thirst, still deny 19th century physics.

What happened next? 

In November Malcolm Turnbull already damaged opposition leader overplayed his hand and ended up being toppled as opposition leader by an unexpected candidate Tony Abbott who had declared that the climate science was “absolute crap”

This led to a stop astonishingly turbulent period in Australian politics with multiple defenestrations, and assassinations, thanks to Rudd’s spinelessness after the Copenhagen debacle, in not calling a double-dissolution election.

But the short version is that a relatively anodyne and inadequate proposal for an economy-wide carbon price became impossible. And nothing in Australia’s future suggests anything other than an uninhabitable hellscape.