On this day, in 2010, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, was caught out having to admit that his proposed “carbon pollution reduction scheme” was dead and that he was kicking the whole climate issue into the long legislative grass.
The carbon dioxide issue attracted more and more attention from scientists through the 1970s. They worried that plans to expand energy production using fossil fuels would lead to catastrophe. They (and some far-sighted politicians) began to lobby President Carter, and in July 1977 Carter’s Science Advisor Frank Press wrote a memo to Carter about it. But Carter as trying to boost the “synfuels” (synthetic fuels, basically turning coal into liquid fuel) as a way of reducing vulnerability to price shocks.
In early 1979 Press asked top scientists to look at whether the CO2 problem was indeed a real issue to worry about. An ad hoc panel, chaired by Jule Charney (a very big fish), met for a couple of weeks in July, and then released its report, under the title Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. In October 1979 William Barbat released the first issue of his CO2 Newsletter. The lead article on the second issue’s front page was about the Charney report.
Report to president’s adviser: CO2 buildup can change climate
The introduction of the CO2 issue into U.S. energy policy moved a step closer in November as a scientific advisory panel reported “If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is indeed doubled… our best estimate is that changes in global average temperature of the order of 3 degrees C will occur and that this will be accompanied by significant changes in regional climatic patterns.”
At the request of Frank Press, science adviser to the President, the National Academy of Sciences had convened this group of experts who had little previous involvement in CO2 studies to make an impartial examination of the validity of CO2 forecasts.
The group stated in its report that the basic model relating CO2 to global warming is correct, so far as they can see. “We have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to negligible proportions or reverse them altogether.”
Barbat, W. (1979) “Report to President’s adviser: CO2 buildup can change the climate.” CO2 Newsletter, Vol. 1, No 2, p. 1
Wade, N. 1979. CO2 in Climate: Gloomsday Predictions Have No Fault. Science, Nov 23.Vol 206, Issue 4421 pp. 912-913 DOI: 10.1126/science.206.4421.912.b
“It was an event billed as the smackdown between the baddest coal baron around and the environmental heir to the liberal Kennedy legacy, live on stage and in the heart of Appalachia mine country. Stage right, appropriately, was Don Blankenship, chairman of Massey Energy, a meaty impassive presence, his Kentucky drawl never picking up speed or volume. On the left, Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has spent his life defending waterways, making lawyerly argument out of staccato bursts of statistics.
The pairing at the University of Charleston was the perfect personification of America’s deep divides: Republican versus Democrat; old industry v new, global warming denier v impassioned advocate for climate change laws.”
The specific context was RFK wasn’t bonkers. Or he was, but hiding it better?
What we learn is that people can have some good ideas and then completely off the rails.
What happened next
Yeah, well, read a newspaper. He’s killing millions, helping diseases were were keeping in check stage a comeback.
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.
“Kill Whitlam” telegram was by Rupert Murdoch to the editors of his Australian newspapers. He was miffed at not getting more out of Gough Whitlam, the Australian Labor Party leader and Prime Minister, whom he had supported..
The context was that Murdoch hadn’t had his transactional needs met by Whitlam, and was therefore gunning for him. Very old story.
Why care?
So how would history have turned out any different? Probably not.
Murdoch is doing a “cheating death” thing, with Lachlan, his mini-me in charge in perpetuity, so that Murdoch and Fox can spew out the bollocks forever.
What a species, but we’re susceptible to it, the bollocks.
We just don’t know which buttons to push to collaborate. “They” know how to get us to hate.
They know how to get us to disdain and disparage – and to end coalitions before they even begin.
And you know, we need to remember this, that the power of the media, if they “pay the truth makers” against any political move that they even perceive to be opposed to their interests.
(How) does it connect to climate change?
The Murdoch media spews an endless vomit-stream of lies, half-truths, smears etc. It didn’t have to be like this….
What happened next
Whitlam was “dismissed”, lost the ensuing election, and the one in 1977. “Labor” regained office in 1983, under the neoliberals Hawke and Keating. That was pretty much the end for social democracy in Australia. And here we are.
How does it help us understand the world?
The power of the press…
How does it help us act in the world?
Knowing when (and how) you’re being lied to is useful, imo.
The other things that you could read about this or watch
See also the first television adaptation of Chris Mullin’s A Very British Coup with the newspaper proprietor on a sun-lounger in Spain telling his editors in London what the opinion polls were to be flashed on the front page of the newspapers about Prime Minister Harry Perkins.
What do you think?
If you have opinions or info about this, or other things that happened on this day that are worth knowing, let me know!
Fifty five years ago, on January 19, 1968, the American publication Science reported on the (typical) capture of an advisory group on pollution by engineers and technocrats…
“One of the CSIRO’s top scientists says doubters of the greenhouse effect are gambling with the future of the world. Dr Graeme Pearman, coordinator of the CSIRO’s climate change research program, said yesterday there was little doubt global warming was a reality according to all the best scientific models.”
On this day, Jan 19, in 2015 “four of Europe’s biggest power utilities, represented in Brussels by Eurelectric, have decided to leave the European Commission’s CCS Technology Platform ZEP.”
By December 1979 the editor of the CO2 Newsletter, American geologist William Barbat, was on a roll, and optimistic. In his editorial for the second Newsletter whe wrote
“The many persons who continue to send articles are to be thanked for their contribution toward enlightenment. Ideas for constructive solutions are just now being formed as the CO2 issue emerges from scientific laboratories to reach the political and industrial worlds. While scientist disagreement is declining with the acquisition of new data, much disagreement exists in the political world over what national energy policy should be and what should be the role of industrial establishments in carrying it out.”
The issue contains feedback from readers of the first issue, including scientists and politicians. There’s a one page article on deforestation, a whole lot of “excerpts from recent reports”
In a closing article titled “Energy alternatives to meet projected demands,” Barbat made the crucial point that
“… the CO2 problem has no outspoken champions and no legislative lobby. Nor does the CO2 issue serve conveniently as a rallying cause for activism.“
I will be creating separate posts about some of the contents of this issue. Meanwhile you can download the pdf (and see plain text) here.
Twenty years ago, on this day, January 18th, 2006 Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello gave a speech in Los Angeles. (In August, Anthony Albanese would use it, to punch the bruise).
On 18 January 2006, in a speech in Los Angeles supporting price signals for energy, Peter Costello stated that:
“A market based solution will give the right signal to producers and to consumers. It will make clear the opportunity cost of using energy resources, thereby encouraging more and better investment in additional sources of supply and improving the efficiency with which they are used. That has to be good for both producers and consumers and better for the environment.
“It is not surprising Peter Costello made this statement as in August 2003 a Cabinet submission to establish a national emissions trading scheme was co-sponsored by four Departments – Treasury, Environment, Industry & Foreign Affairs.
“Unfortunately, the joint Cabinet submission was scuttled by the Prime Minister who is stuck in the past and unable to embrace the future.
MEDIA RELEASE – ANTHONY ALBANESE MP 16 August 2006
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Australian elites had been pretending they would act on climate change for almost 20 years by this stage.
What I think we can learn from this is they (Costello, Albanese etc) are weasels serving their own interests and those of their rich rich mates, who simply don’t care that hell will rain down.
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.
Thirty one years ago, on this day, January 18th, 1995
FEDERAL Cabinet is considering a series of controversial measures to cut greenhouse emissions, including a carbon tax of up to $20 a tonne, which would raise $13 billion over three years, and an extra 10c/litre fuel excise.
The proposals – detailed in a Cabinet document obtained by The Australian Financial Review – are set to generate massive industry hostility, and to switch the environmental spotlight from Mr Beddall, the minister responsible for the woodchip controversy, to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, and his departmental deputy secretary, Mr Phillip Toyne, who is masterminding the greenhouse strategy.
Callick, R. 1995. Revealed: Green tax shock *$13bn grab *$20/tonne carbon tax *New 10c/litre fuel levy. Australian Financial Review, 18 January, p.1.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the idea of taxing “bads” is hardly new (Pigou, much?) and had been suggested for carbon dioxide not merely in the late 1980s, but all the way back to 1970.
The specific context was that industry had already seen off a previous tax proposal (or the idea of one) in 1990-1, and had been prepping for another battle for a while, since it was obvious that those wanting climate action would try again.
What I think we can learn from this is industry mostly gets what it wants. We are screwed.
What happened next – those wanting a price on carbon switched to an emissions trading scheme. This makes bankers and consultants happy, and offers enormous opportunities for loophole finding and patronage which turns into post-election-defeat jobs. Even that was resisted, successfully, for ages.
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.
On March 7, 1960, the American aircraft carrier Kearsarge saved Soviet soldiers who had drifted in the ocean for 49 days without food or water. This incident became world famous and eclipsed most of the political news of the time.
In January 1960, the self-propelled barge T-36 filled the role of a floating transshipment point near the island of Iturup on the South Kurile ridge. This vessel operated at a maximum speed of 9 knots per hour, and would sail up to nearly 1,000 feet away from the coast in order to deliver ammunition and food to large ships that could not approach the island’s rocky shore.
On the night of January 17, 1960, a hurricane arose, which broke T-36‘s anchorage and carried the barge out to sea. The crew had been neither warned about the approaching storm nor provided with the requisite 10-day rations. There were four soldiers aboard: junior sergeant Askhat Ziganshin, and rank and file Philip Poplavsky, Anatoly Kryuchkovsky and Ivan Fedotov.
The context was oh, sailors are always going adrift. It’s a big ocean. This though, during the Cold War will have offered the US some embarrassment material. Or at least a distraction from the lie Eisenhower got caught in over Gary Powers.
Why care?
I’m a geek with probably a whole bunch of undiagnosed TLAs. This is my way of coping.
(How) does it connect to climate change?
Nope
What happened next
The Soviet system collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, with the visible portion being 1989-1992.
How does it help us understand the world?
Afaik, it doesn’t
How does it help us act in the world?
Afaik, it doesn’t
The source that it comes from, if necessary,
Xxx
The other things that you could read about this or watch
Ten years ago, on this day, January 17th, 2016 the Financial Times reports on the aftermath of the Conservative government’s decision to pull funding (£1bn) for carbon capture and storage.
Scott, M. 2016. Carbon capture at risk of running out of steam. Financial Times, 17 January. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91726a24-a4be-11e5-a91e-162b86790c58.html#ixzz3xVjZrV00
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that carbon capture and storage had first been mooted in the late 1970s (and was regarded sceptically). It had had a brief moment in the late 1980s, and then disappeared into the undergrowth.
The specific context was that after a failed first CCS competition (2007-2011) another one had been set up. Companies were to compete for a billion quid. Then, abruptly, Chancellor George Osborne killed that.
What I think we can learn from this is that technologies go through ups and downs. CCS is a proper roller-coaster. You can read all about it here. (Hudson, 2024)
What happened next
The CCS band-wagon had its wheels put back on, a new axle etc, between 2016 and 2018. Enormous amounts of money are being spent. CO2 savings? Not so much…
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.
