Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Religion

July 9, 1990- Green Christians’ 12 commandments

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 9th, 1990,

Is God a greenie? Such a question should make an infinite number of angels dance on their pin-heads later this week, as representatives from all Australian churches sit down to reach a consensus answer.

However, my ecclesiastical contacts tell me that the “Greener than Green” Christians have stitched up the numbers and that the conference will pronounce that He is at least medium green and that mining companies etc are the equivalent of Beezlebub.

Clark, D. 1990. Green Christians’ 12 commandments.   Australian Financial Review, 9 July

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm.  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 you can worship God or Mammon.  Many managed to convince themselves they could do both. To cover their sins (to themselves) they adopted a supercilious patronising tone, like the twuntish author here.

The specific context was that from 1988 to early 1991, rich people felt obliged to pretend to care.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can worship God/Gaia/the biosphere (pick your name) or you can worship Mammon.

What happened next. We worshipped Mammon. And now comes the bill (or “check” if you’re an American).

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 9, 1962 – rainbow bomb parties as hydrogen bomb explodes

July 9, 1965 – “Spaceship Earth” is launched, trying to get us to see our fragility (didn’t work)

July 9, 1987 – “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse” warns Broecker

July 9, 2004 – David Bellamy jumps the shark on climate change

 July 9, 2008 – President Bush operating at his peak intellectual capacity

Categories
Australia

July 8, 1996 – National Greenhouse Advisory Panel tells the truth…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 9th, 1996,

FUEL and power subsidies, poor planning and political inaction have slowed Australia’s drive to cut its greenhouse emissions, a government advisory panel has warned.

The National Greenhouse Advisory Panel, representing industry, conservation, science and community sectors, has advised the Federal and State governments to consider imposing firm targets for greenhouse reductions in the manufacturing, agriculture, transport and household sectors.

It has urged governments to start planning for the effects of higher temperatures and rising sea levels caused by global warming next century.

NGAP’s chairman, Professor Paul Greenfield of the University of Queensland, yesterday said the panel’s two-year review of Australia’s official greenhouse policy had identified “shortfalls”. “There needs to be a bit of revitalisation in the response,” he told The Australian, on the eve of United Nations negotiations in Geneva for a new climate change treaty.

Bita, N. 1996. Subsidies slow greenhouse drive. The Australian, 9 July, p.2.

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 international negotiations around climate change had been a problem for Australia’s political elites from the get go. The first major promise (full of caveats) had been made in 1990, just ahead of the second World Climate Conference. Then, in the 1994-5 a carbon tax campaign got as far as it did because the Australians needed SOMETHING in their hands at COP1 in Berlin.  Now, with the expectation that rich countries would sign on to emissions reductions at the Kyoto Conference in 1997, the pressure was on again.

The specific context was that the NGAP had been set up in 1994, just as the carbon tax campaign was gearing up.  It had held meetings, produced reports – you know the drill…

What I think we can learn from this – you should always be SUPER skeptical about important sounding advisory panels/committees etc, full of the Great And the Good – they’re often a stabvest for business as usual elites and a sandpit for well-meaning liberals to play in.

What happened next – the NGAP was killed off by Howard, without so much as a thank you to the participants. An “Australian Greenhouse Office” – more funding, but same dynamic, “replaced” 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: 

July 8, 1962 – New York Times  on ‘Glasshouse Effect”

July 8, 1970 – Environmental Protection Agency formed 

July 8, 1991 – UK Prime Minister chides US on #climate change

Categories
Australia

July 7, 1997 – Alexander Downer tells the truth.

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 8th, 1997 Australian Foreign Minister Alexander  Downer [who had been toppled as opposition leader at the peak of the carbon tax imbroglio of 94-5] explains the facts of life… 

The Government’s position was explained in a speech given by the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, in the lead up to the Kyoto Conference in 1997, in which he stated:

A significant proportion of the Australian economy is currently geared toward the production of emission intensive products. As a result, the abatement costs in Australia are likely to be larger than in other countries that have lower reliance on emission intensive outputs. 84

After discussing the importance of emission intensive industries in the Australian economy and Australia’s linkages with rapidly developing economies in Asia, the Minister said the “only target that Australia could agree to at Kyoto would be one that allowed reasonable growth in our greenhouse emissions”.

A.   Downer Australia and Climate Change, Address by The Hon Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the ‘Global Emissions Agreements and Australian Business Seminar’, Melbourne, 7 July 1997 (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra: 1997).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm.  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 – and this may be hard to believe for Australian readers – the Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 Federal election with an emissions reduction target that was MORE ambitious than that of the Australian Labor Party, then in government.  But then they decided they’d been “betrayed” by the green establishment (specifically the Australian Conservation Foundation) and anyway, their mining mates and manufacturing mates thought it was all another green hoax, so they flipped to soft and hard denialism.

The specific context was the Howard Government was trying to gain international support for the idea that Australia was a special case that deserved special treatment ahead of the Kyoto Conference, to be held in December of 1997.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Liberals are at least honest about not giving a rat’s arse about future generations. Labor feel compelled to lie.

What happened next – Australia got an exceptionally generous deal at Kyoto. And still refused to ratify.

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 7, 1970 – an Australian banker goes “Full Extinction Rebellion”, 50 years early…

July 7, 1988 – foolish “Jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial in Nature.

July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Categories
Australia

July 7, 1992 – Greenhouse Action Australia briefing

Thirty three years ago, on this day, July 7th, 1992,

Greenhouse Action Australia, in Sydney on Weds July 7, Dr Noel Brown, UNEP regional director.

Anon. 1992.Post Earth Summit Briefing. Greenweek, July 7,  p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm.  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 had looked like it was going to take climate change seriously (1988-1989). Or, if you squinted and chose to be optimistic, you could believe that, as the various conferences and jamborees of 1988-1990 took place.

The specific context was that from 1990 onwards there had been a very effective (though crude, and lucky) fight back by the usual suspects. Australia was also lucky in that the George HW Bush administration did most of the heavy lifting on reducing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to mostly empty but nice-sounding words…  By the time of this seminar, the UNFCCC had been agreed, the greenies were back from the “Earth Summit” hoping what they knew was going to happen wouldn’t in fact happen.

What I think we can learn from this is that the failure to act was baked in, 33 years ago. Oh well.

What happened next is that what the greenies hoped wouldn’t happen has 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: 

July 7, 1969 – Newsweek writes about the “good earth,” mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 7, 1970 – an Australian banker goes “Full Extinction Rebellion”, 50 years early…

July 7, 1988 – foolish “Jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial in Nature.

July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 6, 2008 – Southern Cross Coalition launches “towards an effective and fair response to climate change”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, July 6th, 2008 the grandly-named Southern Cross Coalition publishes ‘Towards an effective and fair response to climate change.”

(SMH Paywalled article)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  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 there had been various attempts to build civil society/social movement coalitions around environment (so called “red-green” coalitions) dating back to the 1970s (the somewhat mythologised ‘green bans’ etc).  One of the problems was that civil society is pretty thin and captured-by-parties in Australia (though I am not quite sure what my comparative metrics are, tbh).  By 2008 it was obvious that Labor could not be trusted (!) to deliver strong action. 

The specific context was that almost as soon as he took office in late November 2007, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd started massaging expectations of actual action down down down (e.g. refusing to budge on pitiful emissions reductions targets) and anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see there was trouble ahead…

And the SCCC? the Climate Institute, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Council of Social Service, and Australian Council of Trade Unions.

What I think we can learn from this – politicians – especially Australian politicians – have now got a full generation and a bit (37 years) of abject failure on climate change.  Back then, it was only 20 years…The only thing that might have saved us was sustained, non-co-optable social movement organisations that then brought broader civil society into the fray. But that was a fantasy then, and we don’t have a time machine now. We are sooooo screwed.

What happened next The so-called “Southern cross coalition” – dominated as it was by extremely timid reformist outfits, pissed off other groups within the “coalition” by doing a stitch up with Rudd the following year in April over a “better” target for the CPRS legislation.

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 6, 1972 – “Workers and the Environment” conference in London…

July 6, 1988 – Piper Alpha blows up 

July 6, 1993 – Australian bipartisanship on climate? Not really…

Categories
Australia

July 5, 1989 – Bob Hawke launches a book

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 5th, 1989,

“Following the Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, launched a book by the Commission for the Future on how individuals could take action to help save the planet from environmental disaster.”

 Dunn, R. 1989. Canberra set for Environment Pact. Australian Financial Review, July 6. 

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. By 1986, Australian scientists, aided by Minister for Science Barry Jones, were upping their volume.

The specific context was that Bob Hawke had – with a nudge or three from his Environment Minister Graham Richardson – latched onto “the Greenhouse Effect.” There had already been, in May, a proposal, from Richardson, for the Hawke Government to agree to the “Toronto Target” of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005. This had been shot down by Treasurer Paul Keating.

Meanwhile, Australia was being flooded …. With books about What You Could Do As An Individual.

What I think we can learn from this is that waves of concern come and go, but people can’t look into the abyss for very long…

What happened next was that this wave was mostly gone by late 1991, thanks to usual wave exhaustion, the first Gulf War and the successful fightback by business interests.

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 5, 1973 – The Predicament of Mankind discussed

July 5, 1989 – Nuclear tries to regain some credibility, latching on to greenhouse

July 5, 2013 – that turd Michael Gove …drops plans to drop climate from curriculum

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 4, 2008 – Garnaut’s draft report released

Seventeen years ago, on this day, July 4th, 2008, economist Ross Garnaut’s draft report about what to do about Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions is released.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  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 made various noises about putting a price on carbon dioxide (a real no-brainer, while still being a drastically inadequate response to the problem) since 1989 (you could say earlier, if you were being particularly uncharitable).  Liberal Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007) had twice had proposals to Cabinet for an emissions trading scheme. One of his underlings had scuppered the first, in 2000, and he himself had vetoed the second in 2003.

The specific context was that in late 2006 public pressure had meant Howard needed to do a U-turn.  In 2007 new Labor leader Kevin Rudd had asked establishment economist Ross Garnaut to produce a report on carbon pricing…

What I think we can learn from this  is that elites – and perhaps especially the Australian political “elite”- have been failing for a very very long time.

What happened next

xxx

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: 

4 July, 1957 – popular UK magazine The  Listener mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 4, 1989 – UK Energy Committee ponders greenhouse implications – All Our Yesterdays

July 4, 1996 – article in Nature saying ‘it’s partly us’

July 4, 2004 – @WWF_Australia try to shame John Howard into #climate action…

Categories
Australia

July 3, 2012 – Emerson stands by “Horror Movie” performance

Thirteen years ago, on this day, July 3rd, 2012,

Emerson stands by Horror Movie performance  https://www.news.com.au/national/emerson-stands-by-horror-movie-performance/news-story/4b07072f54f607771047b831e85448d4

The singing was bad. And now the Trade Minister has been slammed for being flippant.

oe Hockey has slammed Craig Emerson as a “circus clown” who doesn’t take the concerns of Australians seriously.

“During a television interview yesterday, Mr Emerson started dancing and singing “no Whyalla wipeout, there on my TV” to the tune of 1975 Skyhooks single, Horror Movie.

Mr Emerson’s reference to Whyalla follows comments from Opposition Leader Tony Abbott that the carbon tax would wipe the South Australian town off the map.”

By Malcolm Farr and National Political Editor

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm.  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 decided in 1990 not to do anything serious about climate change. Fun fact – it was Craig Emerson who bashed out, under Paul Keating’s orders – the loophole in the “Interim Planning Target” in October 1990 that meant Environment Minister Ros Kelly could go to the Second World Climate Conference with her head high.

The specific context was that the LNP Opposition, led by the brutally effective moron Tony Abbott (easily the most effective opposition leader ever. Pity about how he handled the PM gig…) had been using “no carbon tax” as a wrecking ball against Prime Minister Rudd, then Gillard, since December 2009.  This was in the midst of all that.

What I think we can learn from this Joe Hockey was not nearly as smart as Joe Hockey thought. Craig Emerson can’t sing.

What happened next  Abbott became Prime Minister, abolished the carbon price. Australia is a criminal country. Its elites have destroyed the prospects for a habitable continent, in the most part.  Went to the Right Schools and Universities but somehow managed to be thick ecocidal turds. Go 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.

Categories
Coal United States of America

July 2, 2001 – NRDC blasts “Bush” plan to increase reliance on coal

Twenty four  years ago, on this day, July 2nd, 2001, 

NRDC Blasts Bush Plan to Increase Reliance on Coal; Group Says Increased Coal Burning Will Accelerate Global Warming

WASHINGTON (July 2, 2001) – Responding to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham’s appearance today at a groundbreaking ceremony for a new Kentucky coal power plant, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) blasted the Bush administration for its plan to increase U.S. reliance on coal to generate electricity.

“The Bush administration wants to allow dirty coal-fired power plants to increase their pollution dramatically,” said David Hawkins, director of NRDC’s Climate Center. “That would accelerate global warming, poison more of our water, scar more of our landscape, and kill more of our citizens with particulate air pollution.”

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/010702a.asp

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm.  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 US had decided, under Bush’s dad (George Herbert Hoover – sorry, Walker) not to do anything about climate change. They threatened to boycott the 1992 Earth Summit  if the UNFCCC draft text included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. And the proponents of that, well, they blinked.

The specific context was that “Dubya” on the campaign trail in 2000 had said that he would regulate carbon dioxide emissions.  And then, once President Cheney – sorry, Bush – took office he said “nah” and also pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.  Just plain evil.  

What I think we can learn from this. Politicians will say WHATEVER they think you want to hear to get into office. 

What happened next Bush/Cheney’s plan to build hundreds of coal-fired power stations didn’t work out so well, in part because Michael Bloomberg funded the Sierra Club to stop it all. 

Categories
United States of America

July 1, 1959 – Gilbert Plass article on climate change published in Scientific American

Sixty six years ago, on this day, July 1st, 1959, Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass has an article in Scientific American about … carbon dioxide build-up.

During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year [as of 2025 it’s about 40 billion tons]. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. Grain fields and pastures store much smaller quantities of carbon dioxide than the forests they replace, and the cultivation of the soil permits the vast quantities of carbon dioxide produced by bacteria to escape into the air.

And 

We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun’s energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth’s temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth’s temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth’s reserves of fossil fuels.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm.  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 idea that carbon dioxide build-up would heat the earth can be dated back to the 1890s (it’s slightly more complex than that, but this will do for now), from work by Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish scientist who later won a Nobel Prize (for other work).

But Arrhenius’ proposal had been shot down, thanks to arrogance about knowing how carbon dioxide operates in the stratosphere, and Guy Callendar’s 1938 lecture to the Royal Meteorological Society hadn’t changed that.

The specific context was that Plass had been banging on about carbon dioxide build-up since May 1953, and had had various articles published in specialist journals and also in more “Popular” ones like American Scientist and Scientific American.

What I think we can learn from this is that UK elites will have been well-informed. Scientific American was advertised and sold in the UK…

What happened next – Plass was present at a couple more meetings – e.g. New York in January 1961 and again in March 1963, but wasn’t particularly “into” climate – it wasn’t his thing.

And the carbon dioxide kept accumulating, obvs.