Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 10th, 1988,
Congressional Staff Retreat on Climate Change, held at Airlie, Virginia, 10-11 March 1988 page 305 Abrahamson, D. (ed) 1989. The Challenge of Global Warming. Washington DC: Natural Resources Defense Council
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there had been an intense period of rising concern about the climate issue through the 80s and especially since late 1985, and the pivotal Villach meeting hosted by UNEP, WMO and ICSU. And it was time to try and get a whole bunch of congressional staffers who cared about the issue, if not onto the same page, at least into the same chapter. And of course, this was in the days before mobile phones, let alone smartphones. So you could do a retreat and get some attention. So. clever move if you’re trying to sensitise a policy subsystem. It “worked”.
What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs try to lay the groundwork for themselves. That takes money and credibility. Of course, you can’t do it really well as radical groups – it’s what liberal groups are supposed to be doing. And to be fair, they do do it to some extent, if only at a national level more than a local level.
What happened next: Well, the timing was excellent because three months later in the middle of the very long, hot American Summer, and indeed drought, NASA scientist James Hansen gave his testimony to some senators (June 23, 1988). The Toronto conference happened, and gave us the Toronto Target. And suddenly, even Republican presidential hopeful George HW Bush was having to acknowledge the existence of the greenhouse effect, which, he said, he was going to combat with the White House Effect. (See also Grant Swinger).
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, March 9th, 2009, the ABC revealed just how much lobbying was going on.
The ALP government’s intransigence is no surprise. The ABC’s Four Corners on March 9 2009 provided detailed confirmation that the CPRS is the product of immense pressure and lobbying from the corporate interests that profit most from Australia’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Kevin Rudd had become prime minister, in part by using climate change as a stick to beat Liberal John Howard with. Once in office, though, he just subcontracted this out – largely ignored the issue except for the occasional set piece speech. He was more interested in the global financial crisis and running around saving capitalism and strutting and fretting his error upon the stage. In December of 2008, the carbon pollution reduction scheme white paper had been released. There were protests when Rudd did a speech at the National Press Club. And economist Ross Garnaut who had been Rudd’s pet economist for a little while, but proved to be too honest called that process “Oiling the squeaks”, saying that never in the field of human of Australian lobbying has so much been given to so many so few but so many.
Anyway. 2009 was the year that Rudd’s lot were supposed to turn the White Paper into actual legislation. And business knew that if it kept kicking and screaming it would keep being given more and more of what it wanted because Rudd is basically a spineless technocrat. And this is a good example of it.
What I think we can learn from this is that vested interests will never be satisfied with what you give them. (This is the accusation levelled at climate activists, but I think there’s some projection going on).
What happened next
Rudd introduced the legislation. It fell the first time which was fine by him because it gave him more chances to beat up on opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull (who admittedly had been a bit of a douche. Gordon Gretch etc). Then in late 2009, Turnbull ran up the white flag and wanted to get the climate issue off the table. He sent feelers to Rudd who batted him away, convinced he would get the legislation through, defeat the Liberals and go to Copenhagen for victory lap. And then along came Tony Abbott. 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.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 8th, 1999, an “audacious” idea is unleashed on the world…
Klaus Lackner posits Direct Air Capture 24th Annual Technical Conference on coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, March 8-11, 1999 Clearwater, Florida
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367.4ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that for the previous 10 years, technology types had been thinking about carbon capture and storage as a technofix for the socio-technical problem of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations increasing. And all sorts of ideas had been put forward, mostly around making coal burning more “efficient”, getting more bang for the buck, decreasing the intensity. And along comes the idea of direct air capture.
What I think we can learn from this is that ideas which seem very new often usually have a long pre-history. It’s worth knowing that, at least at outline level, so that you will not be so easily seduced by shiny promises.
What happened next DAC really stayed on the backburner for about another 15 years. From about the 2015 Paris Agreement onwards, people start paying money and pretending to take it seriously. We’re just not going to do DAC at the scale that would require; it’s insane. It’s just another dream of technosalvation.
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.
Fifty eight years ago, on this day, March 8th, 1966, American thinker Kenneth Boulding was talking about the importance of how we think about our position in the universe. Hint – we are on a fragile spaceship.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 321ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that we just put people in space, everyone was thinking about space and spaceships and astronauts and spacewalks. And that sense of fragility was growing.
What I think we can learn from this is that Kenneth Boulding was a smart guy. So did other smart people, Bucky Fuller, Lewis Mumford. Barbara Ward, you name it. But our smarts didn’t save us (and our luck always runs out).
What happened next: Three years later, everyone’s got EarthRise posters. Everyone’s talking about her fragile planet. All of that kind of went away in 1972-73, at least publicly. Presumably, there’s a whole lot of people who still believe that but feel powerless and isolated to do anything meaningful about it (that Spiral of Silence). Fortunately, we learned our lessons and from 1989 We’ve been busy saving the world ever since [sarcasm].
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.
Twelve years ago, on this day, March 7th, 2012, a Queensland politician showed exactly who he was.
When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation to counter what he calls ‘the radical Green movement’, he immediately reached out to Gina Rinehart. Christensen sent her an email setting out his proposals to attack environmental groups that he claims want to hold up mining projects in the region. The exchange has now leaked.
Christensen wrote: ‘One quick thought was to hold a major rally “In Defence of the North Queensland Way of Life” in Mackay where we would encourage people in farming, fishing and mining to descend on the town for a mass show of support against the southern Green interests. If this was to be successful, we could then quickly move this movement into a formal blue collar/workers organisation that advocated for the North and against the greenies.”
There was a need to act quickly, he said, but the plan could only succeed if Rinehart and others like her got behind it. Not surprisingly, the email, dated March 7 [2012], specifically mentioned financial support.
Oakes, L. 2012. Gina and Clive are Labor’s best assets. The Australian, 26 May.
Oakes, 2013: 193
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia now had an emissions trading scheme. The nutjob army that had been riled by defeat was looking for a compensatory consolation victory. You’ve got to keep people busy. You’ve got to keep your name in the paper. So Senator George Christiansen (three words that really don’t belong together in the English language) was taking money from a mining magnate to keep the culture war going. Happy days.
What I think we can learn from this Is that culture wars need their lieutenants, need their logistics. And you can see it unfolding because it’s happening in a democracy. You can also see it in a dictatorship, I guess, but slightly more difficult. I digress.
What happened next
Christensen’s “colourful” personal life eventually meant that he was more of a liability than an asset and he is no longer a senator. The coal kept being mined, and exported.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
