Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

March 23, 2011 – Ditch the Witch rally in Canberra

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What happened next Gillard got the legislation through, Abbott repealed it.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.

Also on this day: 

March 23, 1989 – cold fusion!!

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

Categories
Australia

March 22, 2007 – Unions talk good game on climate

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 22nd, 2007, all the right words get said by the Australian unions.

The ACTU has called for sweeping national reforms across transport, mining, agriculture, construction, education and public health to tackle climate change and generate new jobs. The comprehensive green action plan will increase pressure on federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd to adopt a more radical climate change policy as Labor prepares for next month’s national conference. Reforms outlined in the ACTU’s newly endorsed climate change strategy include government subsidies for energy efficient retrofitting of buildings, new mandatory green building codes for all commercial buildings, large-scale reuse of treated effluent, improved vehicle fuel efficiency and greater use of shipping to cut national transport emissions. ACTU secretary Greg Combet described climate change as ”the pre-eminent policy challenge of our time”, and urged industry to ”face up to global warming and be accountable for investing in sustainable jobs rather than raising the fear of job losses and expecting government handouts”.

Beeby, R. 2007. Union pressure on climate. Canberra Times, 22 March. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that everyone in Australia was being performatively concerned about climate change since about September of the previous year. To be fair, the ACTU had been wringing their hands on climate since 1989. But they had allowed – fatally – the mining union to be in charge of energy policy, which meant very weak climate policy, very pro-fossil fuels climate policy. And by now, the ACTU was messing around with the whole idea of carbon capture and storage, see Coal21, etc. And this was the latest iteration of that. 

What we learn is that trade unions are really good on workers rights, and essential in my opinion, and can be incredibly innovative, and be engines of democracy. But they can also be unhappily on climate, largely crap; not all of them all of the time, but too many of them most of the time. And the books I’ve read, and the articles I’ve read, are a little bit too hagiographic for my liking. 

What happened next? Kevin Rudd, once he became prime minister, threw insane quantities of taxpayers’ money at the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, for which there’s virtually nothing to show. 

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, 2012 – flash mobs and repertoire exhaustion

Categories
Australia Coal UNFCCC

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1994, a local council in New South Wales, Australia says yes to another coal fired power station, on the day that the UNFCCC comes into farce. Sorry, force.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had a growing economy, and needed more electricity. The easiest way to do that was to dig up and burn coal. So we do the easiest thing. Councils are going to wave through the sorts of things because jobs, donations to parties, perks, a sense of normalcy.

And the UNFCCC being ratified and becoming law the same day? It’s just one of life’s historical ironies. The Greenpeace campaign against Redbank is also just not even historical footnote really is it? There you are. 

What happened next. Redbank pumped out seriously amounts of planet-cooking CO2. 

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

Greenpeace Australia Ltd v Redbank Power Company Pty Ltd and Singleton Council [1994] NSWLEC 178, (1994) 86 LGERA 143, Land and Environment Court (NSW, Australia)

Chamberlain, P. 1994. Danger in cheap power. Canberra Times. November 13, p. 6

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/130537382

Also on this day: 

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

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

Categories
United States of America

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

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, March 20th, 1967, a solar energy advocate pointed to carbon dioxide build-up as a problem…

March 20 1967 Introductory address to Solar Energy Society conference in Tempe Arizona by Peter E Glazer – “In addition, concerns were emerging out of the nascent environmental movement about the potential for “certain new technologies” to “imperil the future welfare and safety of mankind.” 

The possibility of global warming caused by the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and problems stemming from the disposal of radioactive waste, constituted additional “limitations on the tremendously increased requirements expected for electrical power over the next century.”

Charles E Johnson 2015 (PhD thesis)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this stage, articles were appearing in mainstream newspapers, but also in specialist publications. The nuclear lobby was talking about climate change – see the Glenn Seaborg commencement address in San Diego in 1966. And so it’s not entirely surprising that an advocate of solar energy should pick up on the carbon dioxide problem and communicate it.

What we learn from this is that proponents of different energy systems besides digging up rocks, and oil and gas, were already talking about CO2 build-up. By the late 1960s it was appearing more prominently in scientific journals ( Philip Abelson, the editor of Science mentions it, for example). 

What happened next, solar energy didn’t get the kinds of investment that it needed. And it took another 50 years really before it became a serious player.  Because the species has a death wish, actually, that’s not accurate; I don’t think the species necessarily has a death wish. I think there are people within the species who are very comfortable getting rich and being rich, flogging fossil fuels, and they’re hardly inspired by the idea that the fossil fuels they’re flogging need to be rapidly phased down or phased out. This is hardly a controversial view. It’s just they’ve been doing it for a lot longer than we think perhaps.

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

Johnson, C. 2015. “Turn on the Sunshine”: A History of the Solar Future. PhD thesis, University of Washington

Also on this day: 

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

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

Categories
Arctic Science Scientists United States of America

March 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, March 19th, 1956, the question of possible climate change due to carbon dioxide build-up gets an airing (sorry) in the Washington Post.

19 March 1956 Washington Post story on Revelle’s predictions 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Roger Revelle as well as being a really good scientist was a really good political operator. He knew how to tell Senators interesting stories so that they would give big science, big money. And one of the stories Revelle was telling in ‘56, ahead of the impending International Geophysical Year was that carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere might cause some interesting physical effects. 

What we learn from this is that the idea of the independent scientists mucking around with his test tubes is a comforting myth, but only a myth. And already, by the end of the 40s, this was entirely obvious, given how the war had been one, Manhattan Project, Vannevar Bush, all of that stuff. 

What happened next? With some of the money, a tiny portion of the money that Revellel got, he hired Charles David Keeling to make fantastically accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2, giving us the Keeling Curve and evidence that yes, carbon dioxide was definitely building up in the atmosphere. Until that point this was not entirely certain, though it was strongly suspected. It’s always good to have proper evidence to back up your suspicions, isn’t 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.

References

Norman, L. 1956. Fumes Seen Warming Arctic Seas. The Washington Post and Times Herald; March 19,  pg. 3

Also on this day: 

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

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

Fifty two years ago, on this day, March 18th, 1971, a US investigative journalist digs up a weather modification scandal.

…in the jungles over North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.32 Under operation POPEYE, the Air Weather Service conducted secret cloud seeding operations to reduce traffic along portions of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Flying out of Udorn Air Base, Thailand without the knowledge of the Thai government or almost anyone else, but with the full and enthusiastic support of President Johnson,33 the AWS flew over 2,600 cloud seeding sorties and expended 47,000 silver iodide flares over a period of five years at an annual cost of approximately $3.6 million. 

In March 1971, nationally syndicated columnist Jack Anderson broke the story about Air Force rainmakers in Southeast Asia in the Washington post; several months later the Pentagon papers confirmed his information.

Jack Anderson, Washington Post (18 Mar 1971) Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn between 1967 and 1972 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American military machine had spent the last seven years trying to defeat a bunch of peasants sorry, that’s unfair to the North Vietnamese. And it had bombed the crap and defoliated the crap out of Vietnam and killed so, so many people and they also tried lots of weather modification too.

What we can learn from this is that weather and climate studies have been surprisingly, always been intimately related to military needs, whether it is forecasting the weather for the D-Day landings in 1944, or all sorts of demented schemes to send hurricanes at the “bad guys”. See James Rodger Fleming’s 2010 book Fixing the Sky.  

What happens next 

Nixon pulled the American troops out in ‘73, the Communists took over in 75. Vietnam became, after an economically ropey interlude, a prosperous and enormous nation. People forget how many people live there now…

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, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

Categories
Activism Australia Science Scientists

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

Ten years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2014, the wheels on the bus went round and round…

‘CARBON BUS’ NORTHERN TOUR 17-20 MARCH 2014

Eleven lucky applicants participated in the tour, which left from Townsville QLD and visited the Lansdown Research Station, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, ‘Wambiana’ Station and the Wambiana Research Site. Participants heard from leading specialists in climate science and agriculture and practising agriculturalists, including:

Professor Snow Barlow, University of Melbourne

Dr Ed Charmley, CSIRO

Dr Chris Stokes, CSIRO

Dr Steven Bray, QLD DAFF

Peter O’Reagain, QLD DAFF

Andrew Ash, QLD DAFF

Geoff Dickinson, QLD DPI

Roger Landsberg, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, Charters Towers

John Lyons and Michelle Lyons, ‘Wambiana’ Station, Charters Towers

The tour was enlightening and beneficial for all participants, but you don’t need to take our word for it, click here to hear from them direct…or watch the Virtual Tour video to see the tour highlights.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399.9ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Prime Minister Tony Abbott had recently abolished – or was in the process of abolishing – the emissions trading scheme that Julia Gillard had shepherded through parliament in 2011. And climate activists were at a low ebb, and understood that they really had to go out and engage people who didn’t “get” to the climate issue. The trouble is that these sorts of tours from the south, to educate the benighted, ignorant, rural savages don’t work. Now, for the avoidance of any doubt. I’m sure that that’s not what the organisers of this carbon bus tour thought or felt on any level: but it’s easy for their good intentions to be painted.as such. I don’t have a solution. I suppose the climate education has to come from within these communities, from people who are trusted?  Who those people are and how they might be supported, is beyond me. I guess. There’s always the internet….

What happened next? Well, the most infamous example of all this is the 2018 tour of Queensland by a whole bunch of greenies who thought that they were helping Bill Shorten get elected, and most definitely were not. This was something that was curiously absent from the Bob Brown hagiography about the tall giants or whatever it’s called. (see film review here). 

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

Categories
Australia

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

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1994, the Australian political elites lived up to their convict heritage.

“Cabinet is understood to have agreed in January 1991, before talks on the UN convention, that Australia would not proceed with measures which had “net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia’s trade competitiveness in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse gas-producing countries”.

Former environment minister and former senator, Mr Graham Richardson, used exactly the same words when he described the joint Commonwealth-State position on climate change to Parliament on March 16.”

Gill, P. 1994. Minister signals change of policy on greenhouse gas. The Australian Financial Review, 26 May, p.6. [On Evans using exactly the same words on 24 May]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that Australia had made a very weak eye-catching commitment in October of 1990, saying that it would reduce emissions if other large emitters did so, on the proviso that there were no economic consequences to speak of. Australia had not introduced any carbon tax and only had a pissweak “national greenhouse response strategy” which was utterly toothless. The UNFCCC treaty had been ratified by enough nations quite quickly, and was going to become law imminently. And therefore the problem for Australia was they’d signed it. What might they have to do? And this was Graham Richardson, who only five years earlier had been a tub thumping “we must save the world” activist who can be credited with having won the 1990 election for Hawke. He was backtracking, or in his eyes, reading aloud the fine print. 

What we learn from this Is that a politician will be a fire breathing tub thumper when it suits him or her. But as soon as implementation of firebrand tub thumping policies might impinge on donors and elite allies, they suddenly change their tune. 

What happened next. A carbon tax was defeated again. The next Environment Minister went to Berlin and was forced to agree with the idea of Australia joining other rich nations in negotiating emission cuts under the so-called Berlin mandate. And Australia then shat all over that, of course. 

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, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Business Responses Denial United States of America

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2002, a major automaker decided to leave the denialist/predatory delay outfit the Global Climate Coalition.

DETROIT — Environmentalists are claiming victory following General Motors Corp.’s decision to quit a lobbying group that has led the opposition to a 1997 global warming treaty reached in Kyoto, Japan.

Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler Corp. withdrew earlier.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article/usa-general-motors-quits-global-warming-lobby-group

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that almost everything the Global Climate Coalition had fought for, had been won – a weakened initial treaty followed by the avoidance of any domestic carbon tax followed by the avoidance of the US being involved in Kyoto (beforehand by the Byrd-Hagel resolution, and then afterwards in March 2001, by George Dubya Bush‘s announcement of pulling out of Kyoto in contradiction of his election promise to regulate CO2.) 

What we learn from this is that culture wars can get out of hand. The Global Climate Coalition had done some things that were reputationally risky and dubious. And you often see corporations which have to worry a lot about their reputation with customers getting nervous when the gloves come off, and lobbying becomes a vicious public bloodsport. It is not because they are in any way “woke” – it’s just that they worry that they won’t be able to flog their product as easily if they are regarded as assholes by customers. 

What happened next is very shortly after this, thanks to other outfits leaving, I think Ford, and so forth, the Global Climate Coalition basically dissolved itself, declaring “mission accomplished.” 

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

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

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 14th, 2007, civil servants get caught out despairing of their political “masters.”

The country’s most senior economic bureaucrat has delivered a scathing assessment of the federal government’s water and climate-change policies and warned his department to be vigilant against the “greater than usual risk of the development of policy proposals that are, frankly, bad” in the lead-up to the federal election.

In a speech to an internal Treasury forum, obtained by The Australian Financial Review, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry confirmed his department had little influence in the development of the government’s recent $10 billion water package, and expressed his regret that its advice both on water and climate change had not been followed in recent years.

The revelations came as the government was on the defensive yesterday about its failure to address climate change in its latest intergenerational report.

Dr Henry’s speech, in which he reviewed Treasury’s achievements and challenges, was given to an internal biannual departmental forum at Canberra’s Hyatt Hotel on March 14.

He noted that the department had “worked hard to develop frameworks for the consideration of water reform and climate-change policy”.

“All of us would wish that we had been listened to more attentively over the past several years in both of these areas. There is no doubt that policy outcomes would have been far superior had our views been more influential,” he said.

2007 Tingle, L. 2007. Revealed: Treasury chief’s blast at government policy. The Australian Financial Review, 4 April, p.1.

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 that Treasury officials had been having to sit politely for a decade while various “economically efficient” emissions trading schemes were proposed. Two had been put before cabinet in 2000 and 2003, only to be shut down. In the first case by Nick Minchin the second by John Howard alone. And of course, the Shergold report process was underway at this point, because Howard had done a save-my-skin U-turn. Also, Kevin Rudd was banging the drum. And it looked like the state-based Emissions Trading might come back, who knew for sure. And so hardly surprising that top mandarin,  who actually knew one end of a spreadsheet from another, might have a little private exasperation. 

What we can learn is that civil servants often have to just grit their teeth as really stupid. elected members run the place – which is of course how it should be. On  tap not on top and all that crap. 

What happened next? The Shergold report was released in May 2007, but convinced no one. Aong came Keivin Rudd who then completely fucked up the introduction of the emissions trading schemes. He got toppled by Julia Gillard and, well, alright 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.

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