Author: drmarchudson

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

Categories
United Nations

March 13, 2010 – first UNEP Emissions Gap report

Fourteen years ago, on this day, March 13, 2010 – The first “emissions gap” report was released by the United Nations Environment Program.

These annual emissions gap report started out answering the question “are the Copenhagen accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2c or 1.5c”

(Spoiler – “No.” What are you, on glue or something?)

13 March 2010 https://www.unep.org/resources/report/emissions-gap-report-are-copenhagen-accord-pledges-sufficient-limit-global-warming

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process had been supposed to be doing a victory lap about now. With the triumphant Copenhagen Deal to replace the Kyoto deal with increased ambition, on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology transfer. That had not happened. Presumably the United Nations Emissions Gap report had been conceived and researched and planned before the Copenhagen failure; they don’t tend to whip this stuff out in a little over three months, takes more time.

What we learn is that there can be an, er, “gap” between what you think your documents can be and what they end up being, thanks to the environment they are ultimately released into. As the saying goes – how do you make the gods laugh? Tell them your plants. 

What happened next? UNEP, which was set up in the aftermath of 1972 Stockholm conference has released an Emissions Gap report every year since then, In 2017, for the first time, carbon dioxide removals were included. The gap, by the way, just keeps getting bigger and bigger and will because the emissions are climbing. We’re all gonna die. And we’re going to take a hell of a lot of other species down with us.  

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 13, 1989  – UK Energy Department shits all over everyone’s future by dissing Toronto Target

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).March 13, 2001 – Bush breaks election promise to regulate C02 emissions…

Categories
Sweden

March 13, 1971 – Club of Rome guy’s ethics are clubbed

Fifty three years ago, on this day, March 13th, 1971, one of the Club of Rome’s founders gets measured and found wanting…

“Most of these notes are to Alva’s husband, the economist Gunnar Myrdal. In the spring of 1971, Palmstierna wrote to Myrdal about the state of “the so-called future research”:

“ Dear Gunnar. Sending you a nasty sign of the times. Two gentlemen from this so-called Rome Club showed up at the Board of Research. They come from Boston, where they have established some kind of headquarters. One of them is called Peccei and is the vice president of Fiat. The moral standard is quite clear when you hear him, after two cocktails, say that it would be best if India were freed from people […] so that other people (white?) could take over. To his mind, accumulated DDT in Indians would be a great solution […]. Palme should never have let the rabble into the Board of Research. They represent a kind of sophisticated neofascism […].■. 

Palmstierna to Myrdal, 13 March 1971, Labour Movements Archives, Alva Myrdal’s  archive, vol.5: 066-2 Jenny Andersson Choosing Futures

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 Club of Rome was getting a fair amount of attention for its reports and models. There had been a front page leak in the Observer about the Limits to Growth report, though I think it was called that yet. So the Club of Rome founder, the Italian Peccei, he was a big fish and was no doubt visiting Sweden in an attempt to drum up interest, Sweden being one of the well, originators of the “environmental turn” of the late 60s, and, of course, was about to be the host of the Stockholm conference. 

What we learn from this – shock horror, I hope you’re sitting down – is that some of the people in the Club of Rome had some pretty 19th century and all 18th century if you count the end of it, Malthusian views about how the world should be, oh, my goodness. 

What happened next? The Club of Rome’s first report was a huge success in terms of publicity, if not in impact on policymakers. Its second report less so. The Club of Rome still exists, churning out good reports, or reports, but has been joined by many other groups producing similar reports. And the emissions and concentrations keep 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.

Also on this day: 

March 13, 1989  – UK Energy Department shits all over everyone’s future by dissing Toronto Target

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).

 March 13, 2001 – Bush breaks election promise to regulate C02 emissions…

Categories
Coal United States of America

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

Fifty years ago, on this day, March 12th, 1974, there was some usual “green” propaganda in the business press.

March 1974 “Clean coal” advert in Wall Street Journal

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/422541/1974-03-12-sco-wsj-cleaning-coal.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was an energy crisis going on. And therefore, more coal was in the offing (see President Nixon’s “Project Independence”) but that would come with serious acid rain issues because of all the sulphur. And therefore the people flogging it wanted to be able to say that they were taking measures to fix that, were responsible corporate citizens, et cetera, et cetera. Now this is a good decade before the term “greenwashing” was invented, but the idea was well and truly in place and had been for a long time. 

What we can learn from this is that long before the climate issue became salient, coal companies were very good at painting themselves as responsible and green.

What happened next? Clean Coal battles continued. Eventually in 1990. George HW Bush, under pressure from the Canadians, and some domestic interests, signed into law, a Clean Air Act 1990. That gave us the enthusiasm for carbon trading. 

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 12, 1963 – first scientific meeting about C02 build-up

March 12, 1963 – first ever carbon dioxide build-up conference

Categories
Sea level rise United Kingdom

March 11, 1959 – Warmer Arctic Raising World’s Sea Level…

Sixty five years ago, on this day, March 11th, 1959, in the aftermath of the International Geophysical Year…

A general warming up of Arctic waters and a receding of glaciers means that the average sea level of the world is rising. In the South of England this rise will be 6in in the next 100 years. This will necessitate, said Dr. D.C. Martin, assistant secretary of the Royal Society, higher sea walls to protect highly populated industrial areas below the level of ordinary spring tides. He was speaking at the Royal Society of Arts in London yesterday on “Some achievements of the International Geophysical Year.”

March 11 1959 – Smith,A. (1959) Warmer Arctic Raising World’s Sea Level. Telegraph and Morning Post, March 12, p.15

p.415-6 – Martin did NOT link it explicitly to c02 buildup

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year, which lasted 18 months, had ended in December 1958, three months earlier. There were masses of data to be crunched. It seemed fairly clear that the world was indeed warming, which had been noted for a few decades really, and that therefore, a certain amount of polar ice would indeed melt. This was accepted without necessarily being ascribed to carbon dioxide. This is an important point. At that point people saw other contenders for the causative agent for this warming –  orbital wobbles the activity of the Sun, something else.  DC Martin had been up to his neck in the BBC television programme The Restless Sphere. (Interesting guy. Further action, look at the Royal Society archives for that period.) 

What I think we can learn from this

Symptoms and causes are not self-evident. You shouldn’t mistake acceptance of the existence of symptoms as a consensus around what only later is revealed to be the accurate diagnosis.

What happened next The Royal Society got more involved in the meteorology stuff. especially by the end of the 1960s.

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 11, 1969 – NASA explains need to monitor C02 build-up to politicians

March 11, 1989 – warm words at The Hague, where the climate criminals should be sent…

Categories
United States of America

March 10, 1988 – Congressional staff (go on a) retreat on Climate

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.

Also on this day: 

March 10, 2010 – ABC chairman gives stupid speech to staff

March 10, 2012- RIP Sherry Rowland

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 9, 2009 – Carbon price being weakened by lobbying…

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.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2511380.htm

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.

Also on this day: 

 March 9, 2005- Albanese says “ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds.” #auspol

March 9, 2009 – Scientist tries to separate fact from denialist fiction

Categories
Academia Technophilia technosalvationism United States of America

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

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.

Also on this day: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice?