Categories
Australia

September 4, 2007 – Climate Change Coalition launches

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 4th, 2007,  

“4Change, formerly known as the Climate Change Coalition (CCC), was an Australian political party, which was formed in 2007 with a view to accelerate action by politicians from all parties on global warming and climate change. Its position on working towards addressing climate change, stresses cooperation with big business in order to achieve significant progress on the issue. The party therefore advocates a close working relationship between environmentalists and the business community. The CCC was registered as a political party with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on 4 September 2007 and deregistered on 25 March 2010.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia was a year into its Great Climate Awakening. Kevin Rudd was surfing to victory over John Howard’s LNP. But people knew, in their heart of hearts that Rudd wouldn’t deliver enough. (They were right – in the event, he delivered half of eff-all.)

What I think we can learn from this. The game is rigged, y’all…

What happened next. The party deregistered in 2010. What did it achieve? I don’t know.

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: 

September 4, 1969 – Ivory Tower types tell the truth at ANU – All Our Yesterdays
Categories
Uncategorized

September 3, 1963 – Ritchie-Calder sounds the alarm: CO2 build up will “radically affect glaciers and ice caps”

Sixty two years ago, on this day, September 3rd, 1963, at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Aberdeen on the morning of September 3, Ritchie Calder gave a speech on “Man and his Fellow Lodgers; a Question of Co-existence”. 

Discharge of combustion products into the atmosphere had increased its content of carbon dioxide by 10 per cent in a century. The ‘green house effect’ could be expected to increase average mean temperature by 3·6° C in the next 40-50 years. This would radically affect the extent of glaciers and ice-caps with resultant rise in sea- and river-levels and increasing precipitation. 

Mattingly, P.F. NATURE January 18, 1964 vol. 201

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 319ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Ritchie-Calder had known about the carbon dioxide problem from at least 1954 (possibly earlier). He had written an article in the News Chronicle, as their science correspondent in 1954.

The specific context was that in March 1963 the Conservation Foundation had held a one-day conference in New York. Frank Fraser-Darling was there, and may have alerted Ritchie-Calder, who was already aware of the issue (he wrote a newspaper article in 1954).

What I think we can learn from this is that members of the British scientific elite were informed about the possibility by the early 1960s (some earlier, obviously).

What happened next

Ritchie-Calder kept banging on about the issue, especially in the late 1960s (see here for example, his “Hell on Earth” presidential address to the Conservation Society in November 1968). The emissions kept climbing. 

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: 

September 3, 1988 – Ann Landers is Greta Thunberg avant la lettre…

September 3, 1990 – Greenies meet Prime Minister, a cautious dance ensues – All Our Yesterdays

September 3, 2002 – “Kyoto cuts too small, so we’re not going to bother”.

Categories
Academia Activism Australia

Version 1 of submission to Australian Senate Inquiry into Climate Disinfo/Misinfo – comments pls

Hi all, especially the Australians, and especially the Australians with experience of submitting documents to inquiries.

The Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy was appointed by resolution of the Senate on 30 July 2025 and I have am planning to make a submission.

I am putting Version 1.0 of my submission (word doc) up to

a) get people’s feedback and improve (shorten!) the submission

b) raise awareness of the Inquiry.

It’s waaay too long, and the academic bibliography will I think have to come out. But what else is wrong with it? What is missing?

The deadline is September 12th, so if you are reading this after September 8th (!), I won’t be able to integrate anything you say, but will still be interested.

The terms of reference of the inquiry

to inquire into and report on:

(a) the prevalence of, motivations behind and impacts of misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy;

(b) how misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy is financed, produced and disseminated, including, but not limited to, understanding its impact on:

(i) Australian politics,

(ii) domestic and international media narratives, and

(iii) Australian public policy debate and outcomes;

(c) the origins, growth and prevalence of ‘astroturfing’ and its impact on public policy and debate;

(d) connections between Australian organisations and international think tank and influence networks associated with the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation related to matters of public policy;

(e) the role of social media, including the coordinated use of bots and trolls, messaging apps and generative artificial intelligence in facilitating the spread of misinformation and disinformation;

(f) the efficacy of different parliamentary and regulatory approaches in combating misinformation and disinformation, what evidence exists and where further research is required, including through gathering global evidence;

(g) the role that could be played by media literacy education, including in the school curriculum, in combating misinformation and disinformation; and

(h) any other related matters.

Categories
Australia

September 2, 1999 – Bob Brown bill

Twenty six years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 1999,

While the Senate Inquiry progressed, there was other movement in relation to the trigger proposal. In September 1999, Senator Bob Brown’s Convention on Climate Change (Implementation) Bill 1999 was read for the first time, which contained a greenhouse trigger.

(Macintosh, 2007: 48)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the Greens had formed earlier in the decade once it was obvious that trying to get the Australian Labor Party to even pretend to give a shit about the natural world (or poverty, justice etc) was a fool’s errand.

The specific context was that the Howard government was already backtracking on the inadequate promises they had been forced to make in the run up to the Kyoto conference of December 1997.

What I think we can learn from this is Bob Brown is a mensch. Lots of miscalculations etc (him being human and all) but indisputably a mensch, who makes the cowards and idiots in the main parties jealous, because he has a) principles and b) courage, things they know they don’t.

What happened next – the Bill went nowhere (nobody expected it to). Howard continued to be a prick, about soooooo many issues. Brown hung on, and helped push through the first carbon pricing system in Australia, with the minority-Gillard government.

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: 

September 2,1972 – BBC Radio speaks of “A Finite Earth” – All Our Yesterdays

September 2, 1972 – Adelaide FOE asks “is technology a blueprint for destruction?” (Spoiler – ‘yes’)

September 2, 1994 – International Negotiating Committee 10th meeting ends

September 2, 2002- Peter Garrett argues “community action” vs #climate change

Categories
International processes Mozambique

 September 2, 2002 – Blair in Maputo, wittering about Climate Technology 

Twenty three years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 2002, soon-to-be-obvious-war criminal Tony Blair was blathering on about “sustainability”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Blair was in full messianic mode (a frightening thing to behold) and behind the scenes involved heavily in the plan to attack Iraq.

The specific context was that it was ten years since the Rio Earth Summit, and Johannesburg was the place to be (unless you were George Bush, obvs).

What I think we can learn from this is that messianic sorts like Blair are very happy to bullshit on about technology. It’s part of their “I am a god” complex.

What happened next – Technology saved us about as much as Bush and Blair “liberated” Iraq.

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: 

September 2,1972 – BBC Radio speaks of “A Finite Earth” – All Our Yesterdays

September 2, 1972 – Adelaide FOE asks “is technology a blueprint for destruction?” (Spoiler – ‘yes’)

September 2, 1994 – International Negotiating Committee 10th meeting ends

September 2, 2002- Peter Garrett argues “community action” vs #climate change

Categories
Interviews

Interview with Martha Crago, daughter of Carl Borgmann

Last week, a post about Carl Borgman’s 1965 commencement address, which informed students at the University of Tennessee about the threat of carbon dioxide build-up leading to climate change, went viral (by AOY standards).

    “Climatic Change appears to be underway, in fact.” – the 1965 commencement speech that should have rocked the world.

    A couple of days later I had a lovely email from someone who had read it and then set up a very comprehensive Wikipedia page for Carl Borgmann. This person suggested I contact his daughter to see if she would be happy to do an interview. I did, and she was! Here it is.

    1. A little bit about who you are.

    I did my bachelor’s degree at McGill University (1964-68). My Master’s degree was an applied degree in Speech-Language Pathologist.  After I completed it in 1970, I worked on a variety of special projects and was a lecturer in Communication Sciences and Disorders at McGill University. Later with three children under the age of six, I did a PHD degree in that same department. It concerned language socialization practices with young Inuit children in the homes and schools of Northern Quebec. This was followed by how children learn Inuktitut as well as other language-based studies in other Indigenous communities of Quebec. By the late 1990s I became the Dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies at McGill, followed by becoming a Vice President International at the French language Universite de Montreal and then Vice President Research at Dalhousie University and subsequently the same position at McGill University.  I am presently on a reduced load pre-retirement Professor at McGill University working on Indigenous community engagement of a large biomedical grant and teaching a course I taught for 20 years and last taught 20 years ago. I have served on numerous scientific project and government Boards in Canada. I have three children and six grand children that give me much pleasure.

    2. Any further light you can shed on the commencement address your dad gave – its motivation, its reception, whether it was the first commencement address he gave. 

    The wonderful thing about your email was that I had never heard of that commencement address nor any of the other speeches he gave at that time that concerned the environment.  I also never knew he had honorary degrees. I was by then not living at home since I was an undergraduate student in Montreal at McGill by 1964.  I had only known about the commencement addresses he gave at the University of Vermont when I was a young girl in elementary school. I recently found the script for his inaugural address at UVM in some old papers and read it with interest.  It did not have a strong environmental flavor to it.

    3. Was carbon dioxide buildup something that was mentioned in your house when you were growing up? If not, when and how did you hear about it, as best you remember.

    I never remember overhearing any discussion of carbon dioxide and its effect on the atmosphere in my family’s house.  There was discussion of many things but not that or else I was not sufficiently interested to pick up on it at the time.  In general, my father expressed concern about the environment and on wasteful ways of living.  But he was a quiet person at home and rarely spoke of his accomplishments or his work. Most of what I know about his work life, I read in pieces written about him by his workplaces.

    4. Did your father ever point back to his commencement address when “the greenhouse effect” was in the news in the 1980s? What was his “take” on the issue in later years?

    Again, I do not remember this being a subject of conversation. I remember speaking to him about university administration and its evolution over time when I was a Dean and he was quite elderly.  We also discussed some of what he did at the Ford Foundation. When he moved back to Colorado and lived in the foothills outside of Boulder, he spent time trying to protect trees from a spruce beetle infestation in a kind of solo effort to deal with environmental devastation of a stand of trees near his home.

    5. Any thoughts or feelings you had on reading the All Our Yesterdays article and/or the Wikipedia page that has been created.

    I loved reading about his prescience about environmental issues.  This showed me a whole different side of his interests.  Once not long ago, I looked to see if he was on Wikipedia and did not find him.  Now I can and so can his grandchildren and great grand children who can now read about him.  That is a delight for us all and hopefully an inspiration to others.

    One last thing about him – he came from a very poor and uneducated family who moved from place to place.  At one point he had a high school schoolteacher who realized he had a very spotty knowledge of math.  He willingly accepted to stay after school hours so she could give him extra teaching. She discovered he was a very bright boy and taught him, according to the story that he told us, “Everything she knew and more” since she borrowed a book from a library on more advanced math just to be able to teach it to him.  She also told him that he should attend a university.  He had never heard of such a place.  When he told me this story he always said, “I owe my career to that woman.” 

    • 6. Anything else you’d like to say

    I would just like to thank you a great deal for contacting me and providing me with this wonderful information about a man I emulated and loved.

    Categories
    Activism

    September 1, 2021 – XR action versus glass door of a US investment bank

    Four years ago, on this day, September 1st, 2021,

    Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard.

    The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday.

    Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/20/climate-activists-smashed-glass-door-of-jp-morgan-in-london-court-hears

    The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

    The broader context was that XR had exploded onto the scene in late 2018, promising revolution, rebellion, joy etc. Already by late 2019, pre-pandemic, reality was setting in.

    The specific context was that it’s hard to do mass actions when a) the streets are empty and b) nobody really believes in the hype anymore, and it has become the loooong grind that it always is. So, some very brave people gritted their teeth and got on with symbolic non-violent direct action.

    What I think we can learn from this is that sustaining organisations, especially ones with millennarian rhetoric, is really hard.

    What happened next

    People did time.

    I am in jail for breaking windows at JP Morgan, the biggest funder of fossil fuels. Here’s why I did it | Amy Pritchard | The Guardian

    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: 

    September 1, 1970 – Environmentalism is an elite-diversion tactic, says American Maoist

    September 1, 1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

    September 1, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

    September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

    Categories
    United Kingdom

    September 1, 2006 – Cameron signs FOE’s “Big Ask”

    Nineteen years ago, on this day, September 1st, 2006,

    Opposition leader David Cameron signs up to FoE’s “The Big Ask”

     – part of the “de-toxify the tory brand” thing. 

    The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

    The broader context was that there had been bipartisan concern about “the environment” in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Then, however, came the collapse of Keynesianism and the return to naked “fuck the poor”-ness with Thatcher, dressed up – as it always is – in words like ‘liberty’.

    The specific context was that new leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron was trying to “detoxify” the Conservative brand, and “the environment” was the chosen means to do this.

    What I think we can learn from this is that there are brief bouts of “competitive consensus” – there’s usually a bunch of different factors at play. Then you MIGHT get some policy “progress”, but good luck getting implementation.

    What happened next – Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010, heading a coalition government because the Liberal Democrats wanted limousines and ministerial boxes.

    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: 

    September 1, 1970 – Environmentalism is an elite-diversion tactic, says American Maoist

    September 1, 1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

    September 1, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

    September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

    Categories
    Antarctica

    September 1, 1980 – “Soft Underbelly of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet” article submitted

    Forty five years ago, on this day, September 1st, 1980, Terry Hughes, glaciologist, submits The weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet” to Journal of Glaciology,

    The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 338ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

    The weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet | Journal of Glaciology | Cambridge Core

    The broader context was that the melting of ice caps was one of the “indicators” for awareness of climate change. 

    The specific context was John Mercer’s article had come out in Nature in January 1978 .

    What I think we can learn from this is that we had plenty of advanced warning.

    What happened next – the emissions kept climbing. They were always going to climb a bit, but they are now 60% higher than they were in 1990, when we all agreed that Something Must Be Done.

    See also the novel Icequake

    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.

    References

    Hughes TJ. The weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Journal of Glaciology. 1981;27(97):518-525. doi:10.3189/S002214300001159X

    Also on this day: 

    September 1, 1970 – Environmentalism is an elite-diversion tactic, says American Maoist

    September 1, 1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

    September 1, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

    September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

    Categories
    United States of America

    September 1, 1957 – Popular Mechanics asks “What is happening to the weather?”

    Sixty eight years ago, on this day, September 1st, 1957, Popular Mechanics September 1957, 

    Whats happening to the weather https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DeEDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA106&dq=What%E2%80%99s+Happening+to+the+Weather&pg=PA106&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

    The broader context was that it was the 1950s and everyone was freaked out about the possible impact of atomic and hydrogen bombs. The International Geophysical Year had begun, with all sorts of measurements of the atmosphere, the cryosphere etc. There was an excitement about the possibilities of weather modification – both to increase agricultural production but also as a weapon of war.

    The specific context was that Popular Mechanics had – in August 1953 – run a short piece about Gilbert Plass’s May announcement of what carbon dioxide build-up might do.

    What I think we can learn from this – the carbon dioxide issue came through all of this sort of sideways, or at least elliptically, for most people. 

    What happened next – the emissions kept climbing. Popular Mechanics returned to the issue in August 1964. The emissions kept climbing.

    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: 

    September 1, 1970 – Environmentalism is an elite-diversion tactic, says American Maoist

    September 1, 1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

    September 1, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

    September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.