Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

November 26, 1998 – “National Greenhouse Strategy” (re)-launched

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 26, 1998, yet another “National Greenhouse Strategy” was launched in Australia. Utterly meaningless of course.

Robert Hill launches the National Greenhouse Strategy (just a ‘refresh’, basically – bureaucratic games…)

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F39006%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been the “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” dribbled out in December 1992, which was a lot of fine words stripped of all meaning after the defeat of the people in favour of sanity during the ecologically sustainable development process.

The Howard government, re-elected in October 1988 thought they needed to pretend that they’re doing something. The AGO has been launched, but the Renewable Energy Target was still being kicked down the road, down the road, down the road demoralising environmentalists and investors.

What I think we can learn from this

Just because it is said by a “serious” person doesn’t mean it ain’t kayfabe.

What happened next

The National Greenhouse Strategy went nowhere. Of course, it was always designed that way, and anyone who thought otherwise was either naive or cynical. And 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.

Categories
Australia

November 26, 2008 – pre-CPRS meeting (yawn)

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 26, 2008, a bunch of self-congratulators met for a mutual back-patting exercise about the wonderful wonderful (checks notes)… White Paper that was coming out. Warning; you will need a sick bag.

2008 Ahead of the release of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper this December, the Centre for Policy Development (CPD) thought there was a need to bring all sectors of the community together to hammer out their differences on climate change policy in an atmosphere of optimism and cooperation.

What better way to do this than through Common Ground?

Common Ground: the event series that brings together people from different worlds, opposing parties or conflicting interest groups and invites them to talk about what they have in common. The CPD’s third Common Ground was held on Wednesday 26 November 2008, with over 150 people joining us at beautiful Customs House in Circular Quay, Sydney to hear Bob Carr (former Premier NSW), Pru Goward (NSW Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Environment) and a panel of diverse voices representing business, religious and minor party perspectives on climate change.

http://cpd.org.au/2008/12/common-ground-on-climate-change/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the long-awaited white paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was going to be launched. And so former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr hosted a “Let’s all hold hands and say how wonderful Labor is” event beforehand. As you will know, from reading this, Bob Carr had been aware of climate change as an existential threat since 1971, along with a lot of other people in Australia. [link]

What I think we can learn from this is that people who don’t know better, are willing to be swept up in the frenzy in the “feel good” mutual masturbation, back-slapping circle-jerk whatever you want to call it. It was always going to end the way that it did. Because we have not got a democracy. We’ve got an anocracy. And we’ve got a bunch of huller technocrats who wouldn’t know ecological truth and ecological limits if it bit them on the arse. How do I know this? It is biting on the ass and they still don’t know.

What happened next

The CPRS was a catastrophe. The economist Ross Garnaut nailed it. Rudd failed to get the legislation through, then was too gutless to call a double dissolution election.

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
Carbon Pricing United Kingdom

November 25, 1993 – House of Commons briefing on carbon taxes

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 25, 1993, the UK House of Commons library did a briefing on a particular climate policy possibility – carbon taxes.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp93-106/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in 1989, at the beginning of the Greenhouse Effect wave of concern, the World Bank had said we need carbon taxes to reduce fossil fuel use and to use the money to subsidise the development of renewables. That had not been a goer in the UK. In 1993 there had been an attempt to justify an increase on VAT on energy bills as somehow a green measure written about this previously – it was a cynical attempt to poison the well, making it harder for proponents to get traction.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons library did what the House of Commons library does, it pulled together really useful data in a briefing that can be used by MPs, policy wonks, etc. God bless the House of Commons library basically. 

What I think we can learn from this

You should always stop there first. You shouldn’t take what they say as gospel of course, – you shouldn’t take what anyone says is gospel. They will miss stuff, they will misinterpret stuff, because they’re human. But on the whole really, really useful stuff.

What happened next

In 1995, Crispin Tickell and others tried to get environmental measures into the budget, but by this time John Major was a busted flush, facing rebellion within his party. And the whole thing went nowhere for several years.

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
Australia

November 24, 2009 – the Climate War in Australia goes kinetic…

On this day, November 24, 2009, the Liberals and Nationals finally decide there are more votes in rage than in the future…

The pivotal event was the Coalition party meeting of 24 November [2009] to consider the shadow cabinet recommendation to support Rudd’s amended scheme. This meeting determined the future of conservative politics for many years, and its consequences for Australia were far-reaching. The debate began at 10am with a briefing from Macfarlane who called the deal ‘exceptional’. Most backbenchers struggled with its complexity. The meeting ran for more than seven hours, with two breaks. Its disputed outcome was an insight into the arcane nature of political rituals.

Kelly, (2014:252)

The context was that, despite having gone to the 1990 Federal Election with a stronger climate target than the ALP, the Liberals and Nationals decided that the scientists were lying, physics was wrong and there was nothing to worry about. That held until 2006, when Prime Minister John Howard had been forced into another of his U-turns, and had announced the “Shergold Report” – a “limited hangout” of an emissions trading scheme. It had convinced nobody and Howard was swept from office in November 2007. The Liberals had started to backtrack on climate under the first Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson. Once Malcolm Turnbull had taken over, things shifted back. But Turnbull, disliked by his own party and also wounded by a shoot-self-in-foot scandal earlier, was in a weak position…

What we can learn is that big events don’t need big causes. It can all go horribly wrong for no particular reason (though by this time the Australian Coal Association had properly got itself going on the anti-carbon pricing campaigning. Again.

What happened next

Turnbull was sacked. His replacement was not, as many expected, Joe Hockey, but thugchild Tony Abbott. And the climate wars properly kicked off…

Categories
Australia

November 23, 1988 – Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke gives greenhouse speech

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 23, 1988, Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke gives a speech to open the “National Science and Technology Centre

The Government has also shown it is prepared to coordinate research in new and emerging areas of inquiry, such as our recently announced studies into the Greenhouse effect. Just two weeks ago Australia was elected to vice Chairmanship of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation. This gives Australia a leading position in the panel activities which are seen as a prime focus for world activity on the Greenhouse effect.

(Compare Thatcher at Hadley in 1990)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that if there hadn’t been all the concern about greenhouse and Greenhouse 88, and all the rest of it, it wouldn’t really have been something that Hawke would have bothered with perhaps so much, or certainly wouldn’t have been covered. But we were at peak global warming interest in 88, 89 and into 1990.

What I think we can learn from this is politicians will turn up to the opening of an envelope. If everything is going to be easy for them and they’re not likely to get heckled. See also, Thatcher opening the Hadley Centre in May 1990. 

What happened next

Hawke needed small g-green votes to win the March 1990 election. The Liberals felt betrayed and have maintained their suspicion/loathing of “greenies” pretty much ever since.

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
Cultural responses United Kingdom

November 23, 1963 – Doctor Who begins

Sixty years years ago, on this day, November 23, 1963, the BBC science fiction programme Doctor Who sixty years ago

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the BBC wanted to make an “educational” show, with some humans from the present visiting earth’s past and the audience being informed about x, y and z. No bug-eyed monsters. From the earliest days Doctor Who was concerned with environment – in the second story about the Daleks, we learned that there has been a nuclear war, the atmosphere is poisoned and they will all die of radiation if they’re not careful. In the second season there’s a thinly veiled warning about DDT (Planet of the Giants). Throughout the show, long before “The Green Death” and “Invasion of the Dinosaurs” environmental concerns were getting a look in.

What I think we can learn from this

Someone should write an article about this. Only to have it knocked about by sadistic reviewers in love with their anonymous power.

What happened next

Doctor Who kept going and going and going, for better or worse, and has become deeply embedded in institutionalised in the “symbolic reservoir.”

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
Cultural responses Denmark

November 23, 1961 – “The Day the Earth Caught Fire” (in Denmark)

Sixty two years ago, on this day, November 23, 1961, a British film about the earth getting hotter and hotter had its Danish premiere

1961 Launch of The Day the Earth Caught Fire (in Denmark)

Trailer –

Full movie here!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in the mid 1950s somebody had spotted that senior US politician Estes Kefauver had spoken of the perceived danger that multiple nuclear explosions could tip the earth off its balance and thought “that’s a good idea for a science fiction story.” It was filmed and released and is perhaps the first is part of the whole examples of climate anxiety films.

What we can learn from this is the film is an entirely enjoyable eco thriller before the name and would make an excellent starting point for a green group that was trying to attract people. Maybe.

What happened next

By the late 1960s people were beginning to talk about carbon dioxide build-up as The Threat.

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
Activism Netherlands UNFCCC

November 22, 2000 – protests at COP6 at The Hague

Twenty two years ago, on this day, November 22, 2000, climate protesters stormed the stage at the COP6 negotiations in The Hague.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1036211.stm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that three years after the Kyoto negotiations ITwas obvious that the UNFCCC process was again going nowhere. Bands of climate protesters descended upon the Hague, which had been the scene of a 1989 meeting on climate in order to say “get moving.”

What I think we can learn from this

We’ve been cajoling the UNFCCC for decades. Citizens, arrests, and 7-metre dinosaurs: the history of UN climate summit protests

Does it build movements? Well, does it?

What happened next

The Hague process ended in disarray andwas the first and only time there was no formal end to the meeting. So they had to continue in Bonn the following June or July.

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

Categories
United Kingdom

November 21, 2013 – “Cut the Green Crap” said UK Prime Minister David Cameron

Ten years ago, on this day, November 21, 2013, a report is published in The Guardian that then UK Prime Minister Dave Cameron (and now Foreign Secretary) had told his civil servants to “cut the green crap.”

21 Nov 2013 Guardian reports on “Cut the Green Crap”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/david-cameron-green-crap-comments-storm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that seven years previously David Cameron had been all “hug a husky” while using the environment to detoxify the Tory brand (how’s that working out for you?). Once in government, he had been forced by the Liberal Democrats to make some moves on climate. But he was head of a party that, on the whole, does not accept the science, does not understand the depth of the problem we face. And so because they wanted to save money, they decided to “cut the green crap.”. 

What I think we can learn from this

It’s a banal point, but if you take politicians at face value, and you don’t understand that they know what you want to hear, and they’re incentivized – especially when in opposition – to say it to you, then you will be … one word is disappointed. Another word is shafted. The only way you’re going to get good results or less terrible results is by holding the feet of politicians to the fire. But to do that, you need a variety of mechanisms. It can’t just be sending off a check to Friends of the Peace or Green Earth or whatever. You also need to be part of granular, resilient radical, social movement organisations. But the problem there is that these organisations do not exist and if they are started they usually quickly flame out or become tribute bands to themselves mindlessly performing zombie rituals, which made them feel good at the outset.

I may have digressed.

What happened next

The “green crap” was cut. Fracking was promoted. Nuclear had yet more money thrown at it. Then May and Johnson made nice sounding statements. Then Truss wasn’t around long enough to swing the axe, but Sunak….

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
Business Responses United States of America

November 20, 2008 – Green capitalism flexes a (weak) BICEP

On this day a new business lobby group was founded…

Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) is a coalition of businesses coordinated by Ceres whose primary goal is to call on the U.S. government to pass broad, bi-partisan energy and climate legislation.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by August 2008 it was likely that – whoever was next president – there was going to be a push for climate action because Republican candidate John McCain was not a climate denier. And Barack Obama as a Democrat was going to have to pander to his constituencies (even though Obama had made vague comments about having lots of coal while on the campaign trail).

So, if you know that the next President is going to be more willing to do something on climate then George Bush (which, frankly, is a pretty low bar) then you’re going to want to get a lobby group together that can credibly push the versions of policy that you want, as opposed to what the radical civilization-hating communist Luddite greenies want.

And of course if you’re a specific company under attack for planet-butchering, then membership of such a pressure group can also be used in your adverts when you’re trying to convince consumers that the latest version of the crap that you peddle – that they maybe need but probably merely want – is somehow “green,” and that they’re doing something good for the planet by buying it (spoiler they are almost certainly not). 

And so BICEP was born.

What we learn

See above

what happened next 

BICEP kept going as far as I know, it’s still going, still doing its thing. Whether it got up on its hind legs, and attacked the Trump administration is another question. Probably played dead.