Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch.

Twenty two years ago, on this day, March 6th, 2002, some Australian “economists” think George Dubya Bush is smart and competent.

Reducing greenhouse emissions to levels required in the Kyoto Protocol would lift unemployment and energy prices, according to new research by Australia’s chief rural and resources forecaster.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics said the US approach to reducing world greenhouse emissions offered a more realistic chance of reducing the possibility of significant climate change.

Executive director Dr Brian Fisher said the US approach offered “a potential avenue for bringing global developing countries into the abatement effort, while still facilitating their economic growth”.

He said there was little value in Australia ratifying the United Nations treaty on reducing worldwide greenhouse emissions without the United States and developing nations.

Dr Fisher’s remarks follow the first modelling conducted by the Government’s main economic think-tank since the last meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Morocco in November which finalised most treaty rules.

“The consequences of Australia ratifying the Kyoto Protocol are a significant structural adjustment to the Australian economy with a severe regional impact on jobs and on several major industries,” Dr Fisher said.

In a paper to be presented today to ABARE’s annual Outlook conference, Dr Fisher said domestic electricity prices would rise by between 37 per cent and 50 per cent by 2010 and 2015 on current projections and Australia would incur a 1 per cent loss in gross national product by 2015.

Koutsoukis, J. 2002. ABARE backs US on emissions. The Australian Financial Review, 6 March, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374.3.ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol process the year before. Bush was spouting all sorts of bullshit about the costs of doing anything about climate change and how wonderful CCS and hydrogen would be. And this was an opportunity for sycophants at ABARE to lend their important support. 

What I think we can learn from this is that lickspittle is a really powerful word. 

What happened next

Well Bush continued to be a douche. ABARE continued to be douchey. No social movements worthy of the name ever emerged. And the emissions kept climbing. And, you know, the rest. 

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:

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”

Categories
Carbon Pricing Uncategorized

March 5, 2007 – Nick Minchin versus reality, again

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 5th, 2007, an Australia politician who had already scuppered a national Emissions Trading Scheme in 2000 came out and said what he was “thinking.”

A SENIOR Federal Government minister has expressed serious doubts global warming has been caused by humans, relying on non-scientific material and discredited sources to back his claim.

One month after a United Nations scientific panel delivered its strongest warning yet that humans were causing global warming, the Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, has questioned the link between fossil fuels and greenhouse gas pollution.

In a letter he wrote on March 5 to Clean Up Australia’s founder, Ian Kiernan, Senator Minchin took issue with Mr Kiernan’s criticism of the minister’s scepticism.

Frew, W. 2007. Minchin denies climate change man-made. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Minchin, who was only from a very small and frankly not very bright state, South Australia, had been a knuckle-dragger and knuckle bruiser on climate for some time. He had successfully defeated the first effort to get an emissions trading scheme through Howard’s cabinet in August of 2000. Climate change had in about September of 2006, exploded onto the Australian public’s consciousness, for want of a better word, and Minchin was fighting the culture war. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the idiotic beliefs of idiotic people can have enormous consequences if those people can call themselves senators and so forth, and sit around the table where the decisions are being made. And so it was. 

What happened next

An Emissions Trading Scheme was eventually passed in 2012 and then abolished less than two years later.  Thanks Tony Abbott and Rupert Murdoch and all the crumb maidens…

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: 

March 5, 1950 – first computer simulation of the weather…

March 5, 2011 – Australian “wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork”

Categories
Australia

March 4, 2004 – The Australian National Audit Office skewers the Australian Greenhouse Office

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 5th, 2004, a watchdog body said “what is the MATTER with you people?” to the Australian Greenhouse Office.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/the-administration-major-programs

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, in the run up to Kyoto, John Howard had made a series of seemingly significant promises to deflect from the fact that he was extorting a criminally generous deal for Australia. One of those promises was a 2% renewables target for Australia’s electricity. Another was the creation of a so-called “Australian Greenhouse Office.” It had been slow to be set up, and how it had basically ignored it. It was a decaying and wilting fig leaf. And the Australian National Audit Office didn’t hold back in saying so. 

What I think we can learn from this is that creation of these impressive sounding bodies is a time-honoured tactic, especially among right-wingers because it gives liberals a sand pit to play in. And people who are naive about how states operate can be momentarily or permanently fooled, simply because there is now some new bureaucratic outfit. This is not to say all bureaucratic outfits are useless all the time. Only that they have the potential to be so…

What happened next the AGO was basically abandoned.

Howard kept being a complete douche until he was forced in late 2006 to be a slightly more conniving douche: he set up the Shergold group to look at emissions reductions, but by that stage, nobody believed him and his days were numbered.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 4, 1998 – The Australian Greenhouse Office gets a boss…

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

March 4, 2023 –Letter in FT: Global carbon price call is a classic delaying tactic

March 4, 2003 – Republicans urged to question the scientific consensus…

March 4, 2004 – The Australian National Audit Office skewers the Australian Greenhouse Office

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 5th, 2004, a watchdogo body said “what is the MATTER with you people?” to the Australian Greenhouse Office.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/the-administration-major-programs

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, in the run up to Kyoto, John Howard had made a series of seemingly significant promises to deflect from the fact that he was extorting a criminally generous deal for Australia. One of those promises was a 2% renewables target for Australia’s electricity. Another was the creation of a so-called “Australian Greenhouse Office.” It had been slow to be set up, and how it had basically ignored it. It was a decaying and wilting fig leaf. And the Australian National Audit Office didn’t hold back in saying so. 

What I think we can learn from this is that creation of these impressive sounding bodies is a time-honoured tactic, especially among right-wingers because it gives liberals a sand pit to play in. And people who are naive about how states operate can be momentarily or permanently fooled, simply because there is now some new bureaucratic outfit. This is not to say all bureaucratic outfits are useless all the time. Only that they have the potential to be so…

What happened next the AGO was basically abandoned.

Howard kept being a complete douche until he was forced in late 2006 to be a slightly more conniving douche: he set up the Shergold group to look at emissions reductions, but by that stage, nobody believed him and his days were numbered.

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: 

March 4, 1998 – The Australian Greenhouse Office gets a boss…

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

March 4, 2023 –Letter in FT: Global carbon price call is a classic delaying tactic

March 4, 2003 – Republicans urged to question the scientific consensus…

Categories
Academia Australia

March 4, 1970 – American scientist vs ice age fears in Melbourne

Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 4th, 1970, a scientist talks about a human-induced Ice Age. Not likely, he finds.

I find that the present particulate loading would have to be increased by a factor of 5 to produce a 3°C drop in mean planetary surface temperature. This work was done in November and December of 1969 and was presented before the International Solar Energy Society in Melbourne, Australia, on 4 March 1970. 

Earl W Barrett,, 1971 letter in Science

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that scientists, especially in America, were beginning to look seriously at carbon dioxide buildup at national conferences, starting to get findings. And scientists fancied an international jolly – sorry, “opportunity to network and further the advance of the human species’ knowledge.” 

Australia was still in the dark ages on carbon dioxide buildup, it would be 1971-72 before scientists (Pearman, Pittock) started being paid to look at this stuff. Meanwhile, Melbourne was in the grip of its pollution fever. So Barrett’s comments will have free received interest in the media.

Also, in September 1969, the C02 issue had already been discussed by Australian scientists – in public fora.

What I think we can learn from this

“International networks of concerned scientists” etc. Science is international blah blah. But from the late 1960s, carbon dioxide was being looked at.

What happened next

In 1972 a clean air conference in Melbourne that had a specific set of papers about CO2 buildup. We ignored the scientists until 1988. Then we heard them but have basically ignored them since then. 

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: 

March 4, 1998 – The Australian Greenhouse Office gets a boss…

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

March 4, 2023 –Letter in FT: Global carbon price call is a classic delaying tactic

March 4, 2003 – Republicans urged to question the scientific consensus…

Categories
Australia Denial

March 23, 2011 – Ditch the Witch rally in Canberra

Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 23rd, 2011, the deplorables behaved deplorably.

2011 Anti-carbon tax rally in Australia with “Ditch the witch” sign and Abbott http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3171851.htm

Craig Emerson disgusted by it “wanted to vomit”- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/craig-emerson-wanted-to-vomit-anti-gillard-signs/6567800

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Abbott had become opposition leader in late 2009 by leading the anti climate action faction of the Coalition, against Malcolm Turnbull , who wanted to go along with some version of what Kevin Rudd was proposing with his Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. 

Abbott had then been enormously effective opposition leader against Rudd, and had almost won the 2010 election against Julia Gillard, in part thanks to leaks from the Labour Party Cabinet that were enormously damaging (can’t think who had the means motive and opportunity to leak that information). 

And Abbott had been willing to sell his ass to become prime minister, but the independents like Tony Windsor, were not buying. So he had faced off against Julia Gillard and was proclaiming that her proposal for an emissions trading scheme was a “great big tax on everything”. And this was one of the moments where he misjudged how far he could push it. And the rally provoked a certain amount of disgust and sympathy for Gillard, the misogyny and homophobia on display. Among the signs was not something that Abbott showed himself to be particularly uncomfortable with. And he issued a non-apology apology and then kept attacking Gillard who eventually the following year, declared that she wasn’t going to “take any lectures about misogyny from that man.” 

What did we learn? In the heat of battle within a culture war people do and say things that haunt them forever afterwards, fairly or unfairly. The reader can judge for themselves. Whether Abbott was fairly or unfairly branded with this incident it didn’t seem to affect his ability to win the 2013 election. 

What happened next Gillard got the legislation through, Abbott repealed it. 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.

Also on this day: 

March 23, 1989 – cold fusion!!

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

Categories
Australia

March 3, 1990 – The Science Show on the “backlash to Greenhouse warnings”

 Thirty four years ago, on this day, March 3rd, 1990, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s radio programme “The Science Show”, covered climate politics.

The Science Show [Episode 702] – 1990 Anzaas Congress. The 59th Annual Anzaas Congress Was Held In Hobart, February 14-16th 1990; Climate Change In The Past, A Human Response.” ;Greenhouse Modelling; Backlash To Greenhouse Warnings; Politics Of Greenhouse Science; Ozone Hole/Ozone Layer; Silly Abstract. A Comedy Piece; Coral Reefs And The Greenhouse Effect; International Environmental Policy.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.75ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was still banging on about climate change all the time (it would only start to go away when Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq, on 2 August 1990). And on the Science Show, they needed to do the classic, “both sides of the argument.” Denialists had figured that out. And people like John Daly had realised that if you wrote a book (The Greenhouse Trap) and then weren’t invited to discuss it on the Science Show, you could cry censorship. So this is hijacking journalistic ethics and integrity for your own purposes – ”balance as bias” according to the boykoff boys.

What we learn is that the denialists have been astonishingly effective at what they do. And institutions have been unable to successfully repel or expel them and protect, well, future generations. 

What happened next? 

The denialists kept denying. That gave aid and comfort to the greed heads and thickos within the Labour party and the Liberal National Party and indeed the economic apparatus. And so Australia never took strong climate action. And here we are 30 years later with the consequences beginning to pile up. Happy days.

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: 

March 3, 1990 –  “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

Categories
United Kingdom

March 2, 1954 – UK newspaper readers get Greenhouse lesson from Ritchie-Calder

Seventy years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1954, Peter Ritchie Calder, the Scottish public intellectual, wrote about carbon dioxide build-up for a popular audience, in a major British newspaper.

It is happening: but authorities are not agreed why.

One popular theory is carbon dioxide in the air.

Normally  air contains only 0.03 per cent of this gas, which acts  like greenhouse glass.  It lets the sun’s rays through to  heat the ground and then traps this radiant heat, which remains to warm air and ground.

Experiments indicate there  is a tenth more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than 50 years ago. This could account for that 2 deg. F.  rise.

But why has it increased?  Is it man-made? It is estimated that each year 6,000 million tons of carbon dioxide pour into the atmosphere from burning coal.

Ritchie-Calder, P. (1954) Who Said it’s getting colder! News Chronicle, 2 March, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in May 1953, Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass had made an announcement at the American Geophysical Union meeting about the consequences of CO2 buildup, although it got no attention in the quality British dailies. Someone like Peter Richie Calder, who was extremely scientifically literate and hooked into UNESCO would have known about it. The timing indicates that this might come from an early read of a UNESCO Courier article by Gerald Wendt. 

What I think we can learn from this is that readers of a newspaper like the News Chronicle, which was left-wing-ish were introduced to the idea of carbon dioxide buildup as early as 1954, 70 years ago.

What happened next

Richie-Calder kept being a public intellectual and kept warning about climate change. Three examples will suffice in 1963. He talked to the Town and Country Planning Association in 1968. He had carbon dioxide buildup as one of the possible mechanisms for how on earth his presidential address to the Conservation Society in November 1958. And then, very shortly after that, he had an interview with a BBC researcher for Horizon ”Muck Today, Poison tomorrow”, where he also raised the co2 issue. 

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: 

March 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 2, 1994 – A green budget needed in Australia…

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1994, environmentalists were doing what they could to push for a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, to consider green-based Budget measures, including a radical tax on carbon.

The foundation’s president, Professor David Yencken, and its executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell, met Mr Keating yesterday. They sought support for a complex Budget submission and asked for a swift replacement for the former Environment Minister, Mrs Kelly.

Middleton, K. 1994. Conservationists Urge PM To Go For A Green Budget. The Age, 3 March p.7.

And

The Australian Conservation Foundation has proposed sweeping changes to the Federal Government’s taxation and spending practices to safeguard Australia’s future environmental and economic interests.

In its first detailed Budget submission, released yesterday, the ACF proposed measures it said would save the Government between $ 1.4 billion and $1.9 billion next financial year at the same time as promoting more environmentally responsible practices and creating jobs. The measures include a jobs levy, carbon tax, woodchip export levy, more money for public transport, and taxation incentives for nature conservation and the use of green technologies

AAP, 1994. Alter taxation, spending to aid environment: ACF. Canberra Times, 3 March, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people wanting to see action on what we then called “the greenhouse effect” had been suggesting a tax on carbon dioxide usage since the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process of 91-92. And there wasn’t really any coherent ideological or economic argument against this other than squeals of pain from the people who would have to pay it, who were doing the polluting.

Australia was a signatory to the UN Framework Convention, which was going to become law. And there was going to be the first “COP” meeting quite soon. And so in order to demonstrate credibility, so the argument went, the Australian Government could introduce a low tax, which would fund some energy efficiency, some renewables and the sky would not fall. And so that was the bid – entirely sensible, but unable to overcome, as we have seen, the power of the fossil fuel lobby in Australia. 

What I think we can learn from this is that politics is a blood sport. And everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost. 

What happened next: The conservation lobby got their wish. There was a proposal for a carbon tax. And it was withdrawn because the opposition to, from within Paul Keating’s cabinet, egged on by the usual suspects beyond, was so successful that it was never going to get through cabinet. And 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: 

March 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
United Kingdom

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, March 1st, 1967, a London audience heard mention of carbon dioxide build-up.

THE DISPOSAL OF COMMUNAL WASTE

 A paper by  H. R. OAKLEY , M.Sc., M.I.C.E. read to the Society on Wednesday 1st March 1967

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that Barry Commoner’s book Science and Survival had come out the previous September in the UK. It received favourable reviews. It mentioned carbon dioxide buildup. In January of that year, there had been a television programme on the BBC called Challenge, directed by the late Roy Battersby, which had also mentioned CO2 buildup. 

So, while it is surprising, perhaps to think of people in 1967, explicitly referencing carbon dioxide buildup in speeches about disposal of waste, it’s not actually that surprising. 

What we can learn is that we have known about a potential issue for a lot longer than is commonly thought, but that we were unable to turn this individual awareness and potential worry into anything sustained. Because we as a species can’t really cope with uncertainty and fear, especially if it’s an apocalypse of our own making. People tend to give up on fighting the system for very understandable reasons; because the system wins! And they retreat either into physical escapes or mental escapes. 

What happened next? 

Well, the carbon dioxide buildup issue kept being discussed by 1969 it was relatively prominent. And in August 1970, the first British state pushback happened. 

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: 

March 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
United States of America

February 29, 1980 – Texaco and Exxon talk about setting up a greenhouse taskforce…

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 29th, 1980,

Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered “for consideration” the idea that “an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980. 

Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too

The minutes also show that the task force discussed a “potential area” for research and development that called for it to “‘Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.’ This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Exxon had known about the climate issue, and had been offering to do further research more recently than that. And obviously, outfits like Texaco and Exxon were in talks about what could be done; “Oh, I know, let’s set up a workshop”

What we learn

Corporates have their pressures and it is akin to that MacMillan Manoeuvre thing, but it’s also a necessary first step. So what we learn here is that oil companies were on it in the late 70s, early 80s. In the same period that Carter was talking about Global 2000.

And they didn’t speak up when Reagan came in and started backpedalling/ignoring this stuff (James Watt, Anne Gorsuch) because it helped them take their foot off the gas (or maybe, more accurately, put their foot on the gas).

 What happened next Exxon changed its tune. And then in 1988, began serious resistance to the climate issue.

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.