Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

May 29, 2007 “Climate Clever” ad campaign in attempt to save John Howard

Seventeen years ago, on this day, May 29th, 2007, Prime Minister John Howard uses taxpayers’ money to try to get people to forget his past ten years of climate vandalism/criminality.

Labor turned up the heat over federal government advertising as Prime Minister John Howard conceded a climate change campaign was on the way.

Anon, 2007. Climate change ad battle heating up. Sydney Morning Herald, 29 May.

See also

THERE is $52.8 million ready to spend on a climate-change advertising blitz if and when the Government chooses to introduce one, Prime Minister John Howard admitted yesterday.

Doherty, B. 2007. Howard coy on $53m ads. The Age, 30 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had spent 10 years doing everything in his power to stop climate action. He had been enormously successful with this. From September 2006, however, the pressure for action became intense, and he needed to pivot. So we had the Shergold report group that was supposed to pronounce on an emissions trading scheme. But Howard had not really convinced anyone about his new green credentials. The ABC’s Tony Jones had trolled him in February of 2007. And he had denounced the Stern Review as “pure speculation.” So it’s kind of unsurprising that all this taxpayer funded Climate Clever advertising bullshit, launched in September 2007, convinced precisely no one.

What we learn is that politicians are used to being able to U-turn, pivot on a dime, to have no convictions, but there is a limit. (See Martin Kettle talking about Francois Mitterrand in The Guardian, December 7 2023, which is the day I’m recording this.) And you can’t easily remake yourself once people have made up their mind about you as much as you would like to think that you can. You’re set in concrete. 

What happened next, the Climate Clever nonsense was spoofed by Get Up. Howard couldn’t bring himself to ratify Kyoto, because he knew he looked weak. And he was swept from office by Labor’s Kevin Rudd. But that didn’t mean that the climate policy issue then got dealt with by adults. That would have to wait until Juliet Gillard, in 2011. That is not to say there weren’t adults who didn’t make massive mistakes but still, nonetheless, adults. 

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: 

May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

Categories
United States of America

May 28, 1982 – “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity” 

Forty years ago, on this day, May 28th 1982, the biologists were at it again,

“Duke University in Durham, North Carolina on August 4-5, 1977 for “Workshop on Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide Enrichment”…. Five years later, on May 23-28, 1982, a similar “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity” was held in Athens, Georgia.”

(Idso, 1982: 72- 73)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had five years previously been a conference on essentially, “rising carbon dioxide levels will be great for plant growth. So there’s nothing else to worry about.” And this was a sequel, I don’t know why it happened. Maybe they had some money leftover or something or they just wanted a jolly and to catch up with old friends.

What we learn is that as late as 2023. “CO2 is plant food and therefore nothing to worry about” is still being circulated by intellectual giants like Richard Tice, of Reform UK (a private company masquerading as a political party). I mean, it’s just embarrassing for our species. But there you have it. 

What happened next Sherwood Idso has been the go-to guy for denial and lukewarm-ism for a long time.

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: 

May 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

May 28, 1969 – “Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley

Categories
Australia

May 27, 1971 – Australia gets a Minister of the Environment

Fifty-three years ago, on this day, May 27th, 1971, the colony joins the club…

The Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, announced yesterday the appointment of Mr Peter Howson to the Federal ministry.

Mr Howson, of Victoria, will become Minister for the newly formed Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts.

Anon, 1971. Mr Howson is new Minister. Canberra Times Friday 28 May, page 1

And Mungo MacCullum

“When McMahon finally got the job in 1971, Howson lined up for his reward. Having held down a junior ministry during the Menzies, Holt and even Gorton years, he thought he was in line for promotion. But it was not to be. As he left the new prime minister’s office, a colleague asked him what he had got. Howson snarled back: “The little bastard gave me trees, boongs and poofters.””

https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/05/peter-howson-minister-for-trees-boongs-and-poofters/
Peter Howson, minister for ‘trees, boongs and poofters’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been rising concern about environmental issues, air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, pollution pollution population the culling of kangaroos and wildlife biodiversity crisis happening. There was a new prime minister Billy McMahon and he wanted to show how in touch with the ordinary man in the street he was so he created the Ministry of Environmental Affairs, Arts and Aboriginal Affairs. 

 What we learn is that while other nations were creating standalone environment departments, Australia’s ambition was pitiful and tokenistic. 

 What happened next? Howson along with many of his Liberal mates, lost the 1972 election that swept Gough Whitlam into power. And the next environment minister was Moss Cass, who was an altogether more impressive figure.

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: 

May 27, 1973 – World Council of Churches wrings its hands

May 27, 1996 – Not just a river in Egypt – denial in #Australia, organised, ramifying…

Categories
International processes UNFCCC United Kingdom

May 26, 1990 – Times front page about Thatcher going for stabilisation target

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1990, the Times ran a big story about Thatcher settling for a “stabilise UK emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels” target, but calling it “tough.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been fights over emissions reductions for rich nations. In 1989, an energy minister, Lady whoever or Baroness whatever had nixed that {LINK}. But the negotiations were coming and the UK would need some sort of position. SDtabilisation target looks like a winner, even if it wasn’t adequate scientifically(that’s never stopped people before and it didn’t on this occasion).

What we learn is that there were intense tussles and battles in that period of the 80s, ‘88 to ‘92. And this was one of them. 

What happened next Thatcher was gone in six months. And the stabilisation target made its way into the UNFCCC treaty.

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: 

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

May 25, 1992 Keating Cabinet discusses Rio

Thirty-two years ago, on this day, May 25th, 1992, the Cabinet of new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating discussed the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio. Cabinet was (mostly) not in favour of making any big splash, and Keating himself would not attend the event (the only leader of an OECD country not to go…)

Check out the article about the 1992-3 Cabinet Papers I wrote for The Conversation. And the longer version here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as early as 1987, there had been an agreement that there would be an Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio. The following year, climate change had exploded onto the public consciousness and the Earth Summit had become the place where the climate treaty would be agreed. Australia had been initially seen as a leader on this, one of its diplomats had helped the IPCC processes as a co-chair on working group one (WM Tegart), and there had been an extremely hedged promise in October of 1990 for a so-called interim planning target. 

However, since then, the champion of action Bob Hawke had been toppled. His replacement, Paul Keating was actively hostile to greenies. And Australia was in/emerging from a recession, “the recession we had to have.” And Keating wasn’t gonna go to Rio, (he was the only head of an OECD member who didn’t).

There had also been a successful campaign against introducing a carbon tax. This had been  a suggestion as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. So all in all, the Cabinet meeting was just signing off on allowing the environment minister to go. But pretty much saying to her that she wasn’t allowed to be exuberant or make any promises. And so it came to pass. 

What we learn is that Australia had an opportunity to behave differently, but the leadership of the time had other plans and other priorities. And we are living with the consequences of that. And future generations will live and die with the consequences of that. And here we are. 

What happened next, RosKelly went to Rio, was the ninth person to sign up to some misogynist flak from the denialists, of course. And Australia had another bite at the carbon tax for domestic purposes. This also failed, and then Australia carved out an insanely generous steal at Kyoto, which it then didn’t ratify. Poisonous, horrible, horrible political, economic elite. But what do you expect of an extractive settler state, a quarry with a state attached to it. 

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: 

May 25, 1953 – “I read about them in Time Magazine” (Gilbert Plass’s greenhouse warning

May 25, 1990 – Thatcher opens Hadley Centre

May 25 – Interview with Ben King – of #climate, education and the need for tubas

May 25, 2011 – Aussie #climate scientist smeared rather than engaged. Plus ca change…

Categories
Cultural responses

May 24, 2004 – “The Day After Tomorrow” released

Twenty years ago, on this day, May 24th, 2004, a retread disaster film (with climate change substituted for nuclear war) hit the screens, launched in New York.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Hollywood does love a good Disaster Movie. Especially if it can save on script by substituting some CGI and basically recycling a nuclear war survivalist thing. And that’s what the Day After Tomorrow really is with an amusingly cast guy who’s a lookalike for then vice president (or actual president). Dick Cheney. Dennis Quaid as the sexy scientist hero, it might be fun to watch it again actually. There’s also the Statue of Liberty thing which is a call back to plan as of the eighth we do like a good catastrophe, don’t we? Netflix and chiliastic…

What we learn is that there are a finite number of narratives and we just like recycling them and repurposing them. That’s not so bad. You know, Shakespeare did it. No one goes to Shakespeare for originality of plot. It’s all in the execution. A bit like policy. It’s all about the implementation. 

What happened next? Activists tried to use the film as a rallying or recruiting point without much success. That’s not how Hollywood films work really. Or activism for that matter. The film did not trouble the Academy Awards particularly. But it was never designed to. It was designed to make money and it did make money.

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: 

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

May 24, 2007 – James Hansen ponders whether scientists can be too cautious and quiet (or, indeed “reticent”)

Categories
Science United States of America

May 24, 1953 – NYT on “How industry may change climate”

Seventy one years ago, on this day, May 24th, 1953, the New York Times reported on Gilbert Plass’s statements at the American Geophysical Union’s meeting a couple of weeks earlier. The article was by Waldemar Kaempfert, who’d write something else on the topic in October 1956, just before his death.

https://www.nytimes.com/1953/05/24/archives/how-industry-may-change-climate.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The New York Times makes explicit mention of carbon dioxide buildup from industry as something that will heat the planet. This is from their science writer Walter Kaempffert.

The context is that a couple of weeks later earlier, Gilbert Plass, a Canadian physicist had made a startling presentation to the American Geophysical Union, and this had travelled around the world [Conversation article link].

What we learn is that it’s been 71 years since the warnings started coming from people who weren’t “merely” steam engineers. 

What happened next – It was taken seriously, as it were, in the 1950s, then seemed to fall off for 10 years. And then came back in the late 60s and then fell off again, came back in the late 80s. And here we are 35 years after that, having increased our emissions by about 70%. 

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: 

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

May 24, 2007 – James Hansen ponders whether scientists can be too cautious and quiet (or, indeed “reticent”)

Categories
Australia

May 23, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 2000,

Prior to a Cabinet meeting on 22 May [2000] where the greenhouse trigger was to be discussed, the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson publicly criticised the proposal, describing it as ‘unnecessary and inappropriate’ and suggesting it would harm the economy, particularly in regional [page break] areas. In a press release issued on 22 May, Anderson said that ‘it was not necessary or appropriate for the Commonwealth to effectively take over the State’s role in the environmental assessment and approval of major developments.

(Macintosh, 2007: 49-50) 

And then this –

Senator Hill had been ambushed. It appears neither he nor his staff were aware the trigger proposal was likely to face such fierce opposition in Cabinet….

The anti-greenhouse, anti-trigger camp did not stop at this. The following day [23 May 2000] senator Minchin presented research he had commissioned from Dr Brian Fisher of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), a critic of the Kyoto Protocol, which found that meeting Australia’s Kyoto target could cost between 0.5 per cent and 1.4 per cent of Gross National Product at 2010. The fossil fuel lobby used this research as a springboard to back Anderson’s and Minchin’s position, suggesting the trigger would have significant adverse economic implications. Dick Wells, the executive director of the Minerals Council of Australia, was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying, ‘[w]e agree with John Anderson that the trigger would harm employment and regional growth…..

(Macintosh, 2007: 50) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard Government had signed the environmental biodiversity protection and conservation act in 1998 and there was talk of a so-called greenhouse trigger which meant that any particularly carbon intensive scheme would have to go to a minister for approval. Yikes, because this would mean that there would be more lobbying and more political cost in waving through the latest worship of the great god Development. The opponents of greenhouse action hated this idea. And on this day, there was an ambush. 

What we learn is that political parties have different factions representing different interests. And there is always going to be a headbanger element, whether it’s Warwick Parer, Nick Minchin, John Anderson, whatever.

What happened next? Well, the greenhouse trigger did not get up and three months later, there was another defeat when the emissions trading scheme also bit the dust. 

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: 

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Categories
United Kingdom Wales

May 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?”

Fifty-two years ago, on this day, May 22nd, 1972, the BBC showed an influential documentary about national parks and how the protections people thought they had were being undermined…

Outcry from the Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth and other groups led the BBC to run a Horizon documentary called Do You Dig National Parks May 22 1972

FOE’s collaboration with television teams led, in September 1971, to a Granada TV production entitled “A Subject Called Ecology in a Place Called Capel Hermon,” and, in May 1972, to a BBC Horizon production called “Do You Dig National Parks?” In the discussion which formed the latter half of the Horizon program, FOE spokesmen Graham Searle and Amory Lovins, manifesting a grasp of open-pit mining technology and economics at least equal to that of their adversaries, methodically dissected the arguments put forward by RTZ Vice-Chairman Roy Wright and one of his colleagues. Suddenly it began to be conceivable that FOE and its allies – who now included many of the local people in Snowdonia – might have a chance of winning.

Walt Patterson – https://www.waltpatterson.org/foertz.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the nascent environment/protest movement in the UK was worried about what was being done to national parks by Rio Tinto and other mining companies. This documentary exposed that and helped raise public awareness and make some of the decisions more costly and unpalatable for politicians.

What we learn is that documentaries can matter. 

What happened next, the environment movement kept growing sort of though, things kind of became harder from ‘73 onwards partly because of fatigue and old news-itis but also the oil shock and economic problems up the wazoo. 

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: 

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
United Kingdom

May 21, 1990 – “The Big Heat” documentary

Thirty four years ago, on this day, May 21st, 1990, the BBC ran a documentary on, well “The Big Heat”

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/22a5069010204a1ea1421917335be902

The Big Heat

As the cold war ends, world leaders are already beginning to fight the climate war. They have been warned by scientists that global warming, caused by industrialisation and pollution, will cause a dramatic increase in storms, floods and droughts around the world. But there is bitter disagreement over who should pay the cost of preventing such disastrous climatic change. Should the burden fall on the west, with the risk of recession and a fall in living standards, or should Third World countries also foot the bill, even though it may mean hunger and poverty?

As part of One World week, Stephen Bradshaw reports from Britain, America and India on the politics of the climate, and reveals the latest scientific evidence on the future of our weather. Producer Charles Furneaux Editor Mark Thompson

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was banging on about climate change, global warming, the greenhouse effect. And this documentary explored the geopolitical consequences and implications.

 What we learn is that the issues have been laid out, repeatedly, for anyone who cares to understand them. 

What happened next, more documentaries. But also, quite soon after the pushback with the ridiculous greenhouse conspiracy documentary, the one that John Houghton wrote about. 

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: 

May 21, 1971 – Marvin Gaye asks “What’s Going On?”

May 21, 1998 – “Emissions Trading: Harnessing the Power of the Market”