Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 25, 2008 – More economic “modelling” against an emissions trading scheme

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2008 the “sky will fall if we do anything to reduce emissions and here is some economic modelling to ‘prove’ it” bullshit continued, as the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) release ACIL Tasman modelling, which of course gets uncritical splashes in the Murdoch press.

At the same time, will-be Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull joins then-Liberal leader Brendan Nelson in saying “delay the implementation of an emissions trading scheme.”

Federal opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has fallen into step behind his leader, declaring an emission trading scheme shouldn’t be introduced until it is in Australia’s interest.

In government, the coalition supported a start date of 2012, but earlier this week leader Brendan Nelson indicated it would reject the legislation until big polluting countries agreed to reduce their emissions.

Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister, had steadfastly supported a 2012 start date – until now.

“An emissions trading scheme shouldn’t start until it is ready and until it is in Australia’s interest for it to start,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio.

“The government is definitely rushing this, 2010 is far too soon.”

AAP, 2008. Govt ‘rushing’ carbon trading: Turnbull. AAP, 25 July. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 use of “independent” economic modelling to say that any emissions reductions efforts would lead directly to Stone Age cannibalism was a favoured tactic of the incumbents (why change a game that had been winning since the early 1990s?).

The specific context was John Howard, who had killed off two Emissions Trading Scheme proposals brought to Cabinet in 2000 and 2003 had been forced into a u-turn in late 2006. The next Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had said he’d bring an ETS in, and various incumbent outfits were trying to delay the start date, while also creating all sorts of loopholes and give-aways.

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of policy always have fall-back positions. If they can’t stop something in the short-term, they’ll try to soften the blows. This also means that the policy will probably be less effective and easier to reverse in future. A nice little ancillary benefit…

What happened next – Rudd, and his underling Penny Wong, continued to give ground and give ground. Eventually Rudd’s CPRS scheme failed to get through parliament, thanks to new opposition leader Tony Abbott. Rather than call a double-dissolution election, the spineless Rudd pivoted, and tanked his credibility and popularity, which had remained inexplicably high until that point. All this led indirectly to serious blood-letting and bed-wetting. The Australian Labor Party learned all the wrong lessons, and is now just the PR mouthpiece and stabvest for the mining sector. Oh well, so it goes.

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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia Energy

July 25, 1989 – “Mineral Fuel Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 25th, 1989, 

Mineral Fuels Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect Seminar in Melbourne

Australian Institute of Metallurgy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 from 1988 – thanks in part to the domestic work of the “Greenhouse Project” (a collaboration of the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future) – Australian public debate about the greenhouse effect and what to do about it high.

The specific context was that debates about how to reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions were about what else besides coal (then dominant) might keep the lights on. Might it be natural gas?

What I think we can learn from this is that there were debates about replacing coal waaaaay back when.

What happened next – the coal lobby fought back (obvs) and even though the debate on natural gas continued, ultimately it was wind and solar that finally began eating into coal’s dominance, in the 2010s. Meanwhile, Australia’s per capita emissions remain staggeringly high, and the impacts of climate change are beginning to bite. Billions of cooked animals. What a species 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.

Also on this day: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 24, 2011 – Rubbery numbers about Gillard’s carbon pricing proposal are disputed…

On this day 14 years ago, the trade publication Australian Mining ran the following – 

Climate change groups have dismissed the anti-carbon tax ad blitz launched on Sunday, and its ‘shaky numbers’.

Industry groups came together as the Australian Trade Industry Alliance (ATIA) to create an ad campaign to derail the Government’s carbon pricing scheme, NineMSN reports.

In the ads, ATIA says only $4.9 billion was generated in Europe over the first six and half year by a carbon tax, as compared to a potential $71 billion over the period in Australia.

The Climate Institute have hit out at the advertisement, saying neither the alliance nor its figures, should be believed.

Not only was the $71 billion amount $10 billion off, but the campaign failed to mention that over six years Europe will generate $143 billion, the group said.

“This new industry alliance is just another shady front group with more shaky numbers as they argue for more delay, exemptions or special treatments,” the institute’s John Connor stated.

Anti-carbon tax ads slammed – Australian Mining

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 Australian political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up repeatedly. A carbon tax had been mooted in 1989, and fierce battles against it fought, especially in 1994-5. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard had defeated various emissions trading schemes, but eventually the tide turned and from 2007 onwards the political and economic elites had been wrangling. Kevin Rudd had comprehensively failed and his assassin/replacement Julia Gillard had hoped to kick the issue into the long grass, but parliamentary arithmetic did not allow (i.e. her government relied upon Greens and pro-climate action independents).

The specific context was that Gillard had announced the details of the scheme, and of course a huge anti- campaign had begun…

What I think we can learn from this is that even the mildest of actions are not acceptable to those who really run the show.

What happened next was that Gillard’s legislation got through (she had a remarkable record, btw, of getting legislation through).  But the carbon pricing scheme was then abolished by the next PM, a thug by the name of Tony Abbott, whose down party found him unacceptable a little over a year after that.

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: 

July 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

July 23, 1979 – Charney Report meeting begins

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 23rd, 

1979 Ad Hoc Study Group on C02 and Climate at Woods Hole from 23 to 27 “Charney Report”

http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. 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 through the 1970s scientists working on climatology, pollution, energy, food were starting to study carbon dioxide build-ups effects and saying in effect “er, we may have a serious problem on our hands”. This was true especially in (parts of) Europe and the US.

The specific context was that the Carter Administration was rather taken with shale oil as a way of securing “energy independence”. This raised the question of CO2 build-up to serious concern, and Jule Charney was asked to come up with a “definitive” answer to whether it was something to take seriously.

What I think we can learn from this – sometimes an issue will be “entrained” because of another one (in fact, that is surely the norm, but we struggle to understand it). In this case, an “environmental” issue gets a boost because of energy policy debates….

What happened next Charney et al basically said “there’s no reason to believe that a doubling in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide – which are likely by 2050 or so – will do anything other than result in an increase of global average temperatures of somewhere between 1.5 and 3.5 degrees.”

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: 

July 23, 1979 – Charney Report people meet – will conclude “yep, global warming is ‘A Thing’.”

July 23, 1987 – Calvin (and Hobbes) versus climate change!

July 23, 1998 – denialists stopping climate action. Again.

Categories
Australia

July 22, 1996 – “Gremlins in the Greenhouse”? No.

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 22nd, 1996,

Gremlins in the Greenhouse. On 22 July [1996] Dr Murray Rowden-Rich outlined the latest ice-cap research, which suggests that internal ice cap dynamics may be a major factor influencing global climate change.

Source – Tasman Institute 1996 Annual Review

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. 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 the denialist campaigns in Australia had begun to kick into gear by 1989-1990. It was largely “subcontracted” to so-called “Think tanks” like the IPA and the Tasman Institute, which acted as an attack dog on environmental policy.

The specific context was that although Australian policy elites had decided no on carbon pricing domestically, and the new Liberal National Party government of John Howard was unlikely to backtrack, there was still the spectre of international entanglements (the Berlin Mandate etc). And also, just laying down suppressing fire, in the form of ongoing doubt-seeding and confusion-boosting.

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like the Tasman Institute come and go (gone by 1997, as surplus to requirements), but the ideology behind them goes on, of course. 

What happened next – the denial campaigns kicked into higher gear in 2000, with the fear that a Labor government might end up ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. They kicked into even higher gear in 2006-7, when carbon pricing looked likely.

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: 

July 22, 1966 – “The Conservation Society” holds launch event

July 22, 1968 – Gordon Macdonald tries to warn about carbon dioxide build-up…

July 22, 1991 – two #climate idiots on the Science Show

Categories
United Kingdom

July 21, 1970 – Carol Mather talks climate in the House of Commons

Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 21st, 1970, Carol Mather, Conservative MP for Esher has this to say – 

The signs are very clear for all to see, and confirmation of these signs appears regularly in the newspapers. I will give only a few examples. It is said that jet aircraft landing and taking off in New York deposit 36 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. This has a “greenhouse” effect because it allows the sun’s rays to come down but prevents them from escaping into the atmosphere. …

However, if this goes on, it is thought that by the end of the century the temperature of the earth could be raised by two degrees Centigrade, and this would begin to melt the ice caps. Water generated by this melting process could, they say, be sufficient in mass to flood many cities. But all is not lost. We are pumping so much grit into the air that the sun’s rays are not able to get through, and they are deflected back into the atmosphere. The ice-cap thus is catching up with us.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1970-07-21/debates/44081be8-99e7-4a01-91a2-691347ccb5c4/EnvironmentalPollution?highlight=%22carbon%20dioxide%22%20atmosphere#contribution-a0bb4299-de7e-4649-ab16-32a903824711

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. 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 from the mid-1960s onwards, more and more articles and books were appearing that at least referenced the possibility of global warming from carbon dioxide build-up (at the same time, there were also fears of an induced ice age). Mather was one of the first parliamentarians to raise the issue.

The specific context was that by 1970 newspapers were running regular “pollution” columns, features editorials. Carbon dioxide was not mentioned in all of them, or even, in fact, a majority. But it was cropping up… The issue had even been flagged in the first Environment White Paper, released in late May 1970.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known that there might be trouble ahead for a lot longer than most people think. Well informed people might guess “1988”, and that indeed was mostly my impression before I started the All Our Yesterdays project. Truth is, it was on the radar for almost 20 years before that.

What happened next – the issue got hammered a month later by the Chief Alkali Inspector. It was on the agenda through the 1970s, but it was only in 1988 that indifference, complacency and resistance was overcome, and that largely due to political opportunism. Ah, what a species!

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: 

July 21, 1991 – “Greenhouse Action for the 90s” conference leads to “The Melbourne Declaration”

July 21, 2001 – Sleeping protestors beaten by Italian Police

Categories
Australia Denial

July 20, 1995 – Patrick Moore at the National Press Club

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 20th, 1995 the Canadian Patrick Moore, who did not, in fact, co-found Greenpeace, speaks at National Press Club in Canberra.

Hard choices for the environmental movement, Greenspirit or Greenpeace

You can listen to it if you like – 59 minutes of your life you will never get back…

See also  22 Jul 1995 – Saturday FORUM Internal tensions threaten environmental successes – Trove

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 by the early 1990s (earlier, really) the incumbents had figured out that a mix of scientists and “environmentalists” who accused others of being alarmists would be a very very effective way of dampening concern….

The specific context was various Australian groups had become adept at inviting US and Canadian public figures and experts to Australia for speaking jaunts – guaranteed to get some free publicity, spread some confusion.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are a limited number (perhaps) of tactics, and incumbents know how and when to use them.

What happened next – the Keating Government (toast by this point) was replaced the following March, 1996, by the a Liberal/National government of John Howard, and these sorts of speaking tours became less necessary 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: 

July 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football…

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed

Categories
Energy United Kingdom United States of America

July 19, 1979 – “a political view on C02”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1979, 

“The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide may be accelerated by President Carter’s new-found enthusiasm for synthetic fuel. But the atmospheric ‘crisis’ may come too slowly to bother the politicians, argues Michael Glantz.”

Glantz, M. A political view of CO2. Nature 280, 189–190 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/280189a0

A political view of CO2 | Nature

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. 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 through the 1970s scientists got more interested in – and alarmed about – the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In February 1979 the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva.

The specific context was that in response to the second oil shock, plans for the US to make shale oil were on the front burner. People like Glantz were part of the move to say “whoa, before you get moving on this, have you thought about the carbon dioxide implications?”

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1970s, a moderately well-informed person would have known that there was a better-than-trivial chance of serious trouble ahead.

What happened next is that the better-than-trivial chance happened. Oh well.

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: 

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

July 19, 1976 – , Scientist warns “ “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century, then we’ve had it.”

Categories
Swtizerland UNFCCC

July 18, 1996 – Geneva Ministerial Declaration noted but not adopted

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 18th, 1996,

COP 2, Geneva, Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, COP 2 took place in July 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland. Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);

2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;

3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 the negotiations for a climate treaty, which got underway officially in early 1991, were hampered from the start by US intransigence on any strong action (yes, the Republicans were ideological about this, but there was also the industrial interests, for example the Global Climate Coalition).

The specific context was that at the COP1 meeting in Berlin, the rich nations had agreed to turn up at the third meeting (some point in 1997) with plans for actual cuts. This was causing all sorts of mayhem….

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s easy-ish to make promises. But the closer you get to having to deliver on them, the more awkward and angry everyone gets….

What happened next – the Kyoto meeting led to an utterly inadequate set of promises, which didn’t even get enacted because the US and then Australia pulled out. The Kyoto Protocol finally became law in 2005 when Russia joined, as part of a quid pro quo for World Trade Organisation membership….

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: 

July 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told.

July 18, 2005 – inconvenient energy targets scrapped

July 18, 2012: Climate Justice poem – “Tell Them” by Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner – hits the internet

Categories
United States of America

July 17, 1968 – Scoop Jackson’s colloquium

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, July 17th, 1968, a Democratic Senator with Presidential ambitions organises a chat-fest.

on July 17, 1968, Jackson organized a Joint House-Senate colloquium in order to hash out the environmental challenges facing the country. Although it was ignored completely by the press, it was an influential event on Capitol Hill. Half of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s cabinet members attended.

“Out of that colloquium grew Jackson’s idea for a National Environmental Policy Act — a sweeping idea that, when it was enacted into law 18 months later, forced the federal government to examine the environmental consequences of almost every one of its actions, whether it was to build a supersonic transport or to carve a barge canal,” said William W. Prochnau and Richard W. Larsen in a biography of Jackson published four years later (Prochnau and Larsen, p. 68-69). https://www.historylink.org/File/9903

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. 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 environmental concerns had been growing over the 1950s and 1960s getting a significant boost with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962. 

The specific context was that there had been repeated efforts by Democrats – especially Gaylord Nelson and Jackson – to get environmental legislation through, against the usual opposition. But pressures were slowly growing, and colloquia like this was part of that slow boring of hard boards (as per Max Weber).

What I think we can learn from this is that they sentence you to at LEAST twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within. Twenty should be considered a very light sentence…

What happened next – after the Santa Barbara Oil Spill of January 1969, things got a bit “easier” – Nelson suggested and got his “Earth Day”. Scoop Jackson, the Senator for Boeing, never got to be president…

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: 

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic”