Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

March 22, 2007 – Fairfax tells its staff to Be Green, for an hour.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, March 22nd, 2007, Fairfax Media tells its employees to virtue-signal

From: Staff Notices To: All_Fairfax_Staff

Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2007 9:06 AM

Subject: EARTH HOUR – A MESSAGE TO ALL STAFF

When the lights of Sydney are turned off for one hour at 7:30pm on Saturday, March 31, we should take a moment to reflect, with pride, on the role Fairfax Media has played in Earth Hour.

For the past eight months, the Earth Hour working group has been meeting every Tuesday on Level 19 at Darling Park to plan this bold event.

Every strand of our business – management, editorial, online, commercial, marketing and production – has been involved in the planning process.

(From Ray Evans, 27 April 2007 rant…)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that approximately six months previously, climate change had burst back into Australian public consciousness, via the Millennium Drought, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, things like the Stern Review and perhaps even the UK Camp for Climate Action. 

Kevin Rudd as first ALP shadow foreign secretary and then leader had by this time, already called climate change “the great moral challenge of our generation” (he was using the issue as a stick with which to beat the incumbent Prime Minister, John Howard). And everyone wants to feel they’re doing their bit without being at all really inconvenienced, or to turn that “inconvenience” into a display of virtue. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there might be a so-called Earth Hour, but the other 23 days of that day, and all the other days of the year where there isn’t an Earth Hour is what – Anti Earth Hour? or Kill the Earth Hour? Go figure. 

What happened next

Some people switched some lights off. And patted themselves heartily on the back. We’ll come back to this on the day itself, March 31.

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 22, 1960 – US Television warning of carbon dioxide build up, courtesy Athelstan Spilhaus…

March 22, 2007 – Unions talk good game on climate

March 22, 2012 – flash mobs and repertoire exhaustion

Categories
Norway

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

Forty five years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1980, the oil companies CLEARLY knew what was coming. And not just those Evil American ones – also the nice cuddly progressive [Er, is this right? Ed] European ones….

One example of this was a talk given in 1980 [on March 21] by Finn Lied, the chair of the Statoil board, at a seminar about Norway’s energy supply towards the year 2000. Lied, who had also been the minister of industry during the establishment of Statoil in 1971–72, stressed the ‘social cost’ of the ‘CO2 problem’. His main concern, however, was not the effects that increasing carbon dioxide levels would have on nature and human life but what it meant for the oil industry’s future prospects. ‘Luckily’, Lied concluded, the emissions problem was ‘a very long-term problem that no one really dared to begin think about’.11 

Nissen, A. 2021. A greener shade of black? Statoil, the Norwegian government and climate change,1990—2005. Scandinavian Journal of History, Volume 46, 2021 – Issue 3, https://doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2021.1876757

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 429ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva in February 1979. In the U the Charney report had happened. There were other reports coming out saying, “hey, carbon dioxide build up is going to be a real problem.”  If your day job was energy provision, you knew.

What I think we can learn from this is that people who knew about the problem and knew that their industry, their country, was helping to cause it, were, in 1980, sanguine, saying that proof was a long way off and they could simply kick the can down the road.

But eventually you run out of road, and the can gets bigger and you start to break your toe. That metaphor could be overused. Anyhoo. 

What happened next

Ten years later, Norway introduced a carbon tax, and Statoil started work on its tax dodge of Sleipner Field. 

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 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

Categories
Australia

March 20, 2014 – Australian Senate votes against killing off ARENA, CEFC etc 

Eleven years ago, on this day, March 20th, 2014,  Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s first attempt at legislative climate thuggery is foiled.

The government’s carbon tax repeal laws have been voted down by the Senate, leaving the fate of Australia’s carbon pricing scheme up to the new Senate that sits from July.

It appears very likely the carbon price will then be repealed – and the government says its repeal laws will make the end date of the tax retrospective to 1 July, 2014 – even if they have not passed the parliament by then.

Carbon tax repeal voted down by Senate | Australia news | The Guardian

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the previous five years had seen ferocious battles over a fairly basic and inadequate carbon pricing scheme. 

In late 2009 the Liberal Party had tossed Malcolm Turnbull for being too pro-climate action and given Tony Abbott, the leader of the opposition gig. Abbott had then killed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Rudd basically imploded. Rudd’s henchman then gave a journalist a jibe about Julia Gillard that caused Gillard to uncharacteristically lose her cool. Gillard challenged for the leadership and Rudd was turfed by Labor. Gillard became prime minister, and during the snap election campaign that she just called, there would be no carbon tax under her government. The 2010 election resulted in a situation with neither the Coalition or Labor having enough MPs to form a government, and therefore relied on Gillard or Abbott doing enough deals with the independents and the Greens. Gillard succeeded, but the cost of their support was – you guessed it – a carbon pricing scheme. The optics were bad, and they were handled even worse (see February 24 2011 blogpost). 

And so 2011 saw this astonishing, vitriolic, insane battle over a “carbon tax”, with most businesses ducking and covering and not wanting to be drawn into the fight. and even the consultancies, or maybe especially the consultancies, given that they are entirely dependent on the good graces of political parties were cutting their cloth accordingly (See Malto Maltenberger anecdote- the intellectual corruption and quiescence is astonishing.)

Anyway, Gillard, thanks to in part, the ferocious attacks of the Murdoch press, became very unpopular in the opinion polls. Kevin Rudd, who’d been lurking on the back benches, launched his challenge, toppled Gillard. 

There was an election in 2013 which the wrecking ball, aka Tony Abbott, won handily, and Abbott had set about trying to repeal all the carbon pricing legislation and also to abolish things like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, but Abbott did not have control of the Senate, and this is an example of them pushing back. 

What I think we can learn from this is that this period in Australian politics was an especially bewildering soap opera. Actually, not even a soap opera, more like a Jacobean tragedy. 

What happened next, CEFC and ARENA survived, sort of. Abbott was turfed by Turnbull, who was then turfed by Morrison. A lot of this has to do with energy and also the culture wars going on. “Which kind of Australia do we want?” And it seems that enough people want an imagined 1950s Australia that never existed.

And these people can be mobilized. And the so-called progressive forces, which are mostly or at least partially blind to the arrived ecological debacle, have neither the language nor the skills to do much about it.

It may or may not be different when the Rupert bloody Murdoch finally dies. But just because the poisoner is dead doesn’t mean the poison stops working. 

I suppose this is a contestable way of looking at it. You also have to look at the poison needing to be frequently updated, or else the so-called immune system of the so-called body politic might “cleanse itself” of insanity? Who knows? We’ll find out. 

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 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

Categories
United States of America

 March 19, 2001 – US Secretary of Energy boasts about all the coal plants he will build (doesn’t).

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 19th, 2001,

Spencer Abraham announcing new power plants each year etc. 

“On the other side, Energy Secretary Abraham had stated in a public speech on March 19 that the United States must add ninety new power plants each year, mostly coal-fired, for the next twenty years to meet the need for a 45 percent increase in electricity demand by 2020. Vice President Cheney strongly supported efforts to increase fossil fuel supplies, including the opening of public lands, continental shelves, and the Arctic for increased coal mining and oil and gas drilling. Altogether it was unclear where the balance of opinion of the Task Force would fall. I thought it was realistic to think the scientific information we provided would aid their decision making.”

From James Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren, page 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

George Bush Junior had been handed the presidency thanks to the Supreme Court and some hanging chads in Florida, and Al Gore’s willingness to play along, (there’s that footage of the black Democrats knowing what’s coming, desperately trying to overturn it and Gore basically laughing at them…  and them good old boys drinking whiskey and rye. 

And President Cheney, being an oil man, everyone kind of knew it was coming.. 

Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, talking about hundreds of new coal plants, which puts one in mind of President Nixon’s Project Independence. 

What I think we can learn from this is that every incoming administration wants to lay out morale-boosting for their side, eye-catching, Big Number targets. Mostly it does not come to pass. 

What happened next

It did not come to pass. And then in 2011 Michael Bloomberg funded lots of local anti-coal initiatives, which meant that coal-fired power stations started to not get built/get retired. It didn’t happen by accident.

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 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Categories
Australia

March 19, 1970 – first warning in Australian parliament about carbon dioxide build-up

On this day, March 19, fifty five years ago, Dr Richard Gun, a South Australian, made his maiden speech in the Federal Parliament.


He had this to say –

And what about smog? This matter has had some attention from the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution. The Senate Select Committee has recommended that some attention be given to controlling exhaust emissions from cars. But, even if the report of the Committee is acted upon, the effect of anti-pollution measures should be quite clear. The Committee looked at the possibility of an electric car being evolved, or a car powered by steam. After-burners were studied and carburettor modifications were considered also. These result in more complete fuel combustion. So too does the use of liquid propane for fuel. But, whatever these ingenious proposals can do in reducing smog, they still cannot prevent consumption of oxygen and production of carbon dioxide. It is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide which may be the most sinister of all effects. The only way that this can be controlled is by reducing the amount of combustion taking place. An enormous wasted combustion occurs in our cities with each individual motor vehicle bearing an average of only 1.2 persons per vehicle trip. Surely, the most logical way of overcoming this is by increasing use of public transport for commuters; in other words, to have more people per vehicle. So, let us commute by public transport and keep our motor cars for other purposes than driving to work.

You can read more about him (he was interviewed about this last year!) here.

March 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

 March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

Categories
United Kingdom

March 18, 1970 – Ministry of Transport says “exhaust emission is a minor pollution problem not warranting public expenditure“

Fifty years ago, on this day, March 18th 1970, the Ministry of (for) Transport told some other civil servants tasked with looking at pollution “nothing to see here”.

The National Archives – AB 48 dash 940

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a mad rush among the civil service to “support” the drafting and publication of the very first Environment White Paper

Feb 13 1970 the NonNuclear Committee had asked Roberts to talk to Ministry of Environment (see AB 48/940  jpg 67)

What I think we can learn from this is that civil servants go native, and are looking to support whatever industry they are supposed to be “regulating.”

What happened next

Car fumes as a problem for “the greenhouse effect” were getting attention within a couple of years (see Alistair Aird’s The Automotive Nightmare).  They were in the frame in 1988. And here we are, the fat end of 40 years later, still in thrall to cars (oh, and EVs? They’re not the panacea some would have you believe…)

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 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

 March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2006,

Australia has the opportunity and responsibility to explore emissions-reduction technologies, writes Grant Thorne.

Thorne, G. (2006) Carbon capture the key to cutting greenhouse gases. The Australian Financial Review, March 17.

“Grant Thorne. Grant Thorne is managing director of Rio Tinto Coal Australia, a major Australian coal producer.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that over the previous couple of years, there had been increased talk about CCS in Australia – Coal 21 national plans and Zero Emissions conferences, especially in Queensland. And it was obvious –  or it seemed obvious – that there would be international negotiations to create a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. And so everyone was banging on about CCS. 

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s all just kayfabe. And also, even if they were serious and it worked perfectly, CCS would be a terrifyingly small proportion of overall emissions. And CCS is essentially a way of not talking about reducing energy throughputs in affluent/effluent societies. 

What happened next

By 2009/2010 reality had caught up with CCS in Australia, at least on that occasion. Since then, people have tried to paint Gorgon (given its approval by Labor Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett in 2009) as a success. It isn’t, except insofar as it enables some people not to talk about the need for energy reductions.

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 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
United Kingdom

March 16, 1993 – VAT to be imposed on domestic energy, called a “climate measure”

Thirty two years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1993,

March budget announces VAT on domestic energy, disguises it as a climate measure (see Pearson and Watson 2012, p14)

Here’s the speech from John Major

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the British state was having one of its periodic fiscal crises (though the crisis is now perhaps more permanent!), Anyway they put Value Added Tax (VAT) on domestic heating and called it a climate initiative. And this is brilliant, because it raises revenue and it smears the green cause as it were. It’s like the salting the earth. It’s very, very clever politics (terrible policy and governance, but clever politics).

What I think we can learn from this is that just because you’re evil doesn’t mean you’re stupid. 

What happened next

There was resistance to this, but it also made life harder for talking about actual green taxes. 

See 1995 post 

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

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 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

 March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Science

March 15, 2001 – “First, Direct Observational Evidence Of A Change In The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Between 1970 And 1997”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2001,

First, Direct Observational Evidence Of A Change In The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Between 1970 And 1997

Date: March 15, 2001

Source: Imperial College Of Science, Technology And Medicine

Summary:

Scientists from Imperial College, London, have produced the first direct observational evidence that the earth’s greenhouse effect increased between 1970 and 1997. Writing in the journal Nature (1), researchers in the Department of Physics show that there has been a significant change in the Earth’s greenhouse effect over the last 30 years https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010315075858.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the third IPCC report was about to be published, and everyone in the scientific world who studied this was pretty sure climate change was caused by carbon dioxide was A Thing, but it’s always nice to have the additional evidence. 

What I think we can learn from this isthat you can compile evidence upon evidence and upon evidence, and it won’t be enough to convince some people. You can prove anything with facts. 

What happened next

The third IPCC report came out. We’re toast. That’s almost 25 years ago.

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 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

March 15, 2019 – New Zealand school strike launched, called off.

Categories
United States of America

March 14, 1988 – Reagan mouths pieties about international scientific cooperation

Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 14th, 1988,

In his message to the Congress of March 14, 1988 concerning international activities in science and technology, President Reagan said that “participation in international science and technology activities is vital to U.S. national security in the broadest sense.”

Dept. St. Bull., vol 88 at 53 (June 1988).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ozone hole had been discovered. There had been a treaty and he protocol in rapid, rapid time. So rapid that the Department of State, etc, and Energy especially, were worried that they’d been bounced into something and decided were going to fight harder against the carbon dioxide treaty. Reagan, obviously, was a lame duck, and neck deep in Iran-Contra. Whoever put the words in his mouth, it’s all boilerplate, motherhood apple pie, who could be against scientific cooperation? (also, with the INF treaty, the Cold War winding down – Gorbachev, Perestroika and Glasnost blah blah blah).

What I think we can learn from this

so you could say these sorts of nonsense statements, no one would bat an eyelid. In fact, they’d bat an eyelid if you didn’t say them, or if you said the opposite. So it’s a communication, but one that’s empty of any meaning.

What happened next

Three months later with the drought in the American midwest, James Hansen’s testimony and “The Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, the carbon dioxide issue burst onto the agenda. 

See also “greenhouse glasnost.” 

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 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

 March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

 March 14, 2007 – Australian Treasury eyeroll about politicians on #climate, (scoop by Laura Tingle).