Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

September 26, 1998 – Howard decision only to ratify Kyoto if US does leaks.

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 26, 1998, the Canberra Times had a good old-fashioned scoop, thanks to a leak … . That was that the government of John Howard had decided – despite having extorted an insanely generous deal at Kyoto, and having signed it in April, they would not submit it to Parliament for ratification unless (and this was vanishingly unlikely) the USA did.

Sept 1998 – Howard government decision not to ratify Kyoto unless America does. Leaks on 26 September (Scorcher p. 102)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian government had secured an eye-wateringly generous deal at Kyoto but that still was not going to be suitable to Howard because once you’re in the ratchet it can keep ratcheting. And it would lead on to having to do more and more over time. Howard was on the record as saying that the Australian should never have even signed up to the UNFCCC. The leak, the leak was in the context of an impending federal election.

What I think we can learn from this

This is “clever politics”- you are kicking it into the long grass but you are not saying “never.” And you are hinge-ing it on other people’s actions, so everyone can get mad at them instead. It’s a bit like the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket picking on Private Pyle. 

What happened next 

George Bush, once he had been selected president, pulled the US out of Kyoto. Howard waited for another 16 months before confirming that Australia would not ratify. He did this on World Environment Day. For the lulz.

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

September 25, 2003 – Bob Carr “strikes greenhouse deal” with European investors

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 25, 2003, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, who had been aware of the greenhouse effect as a problem since 1971, keeps going in his efforts to make the state a hub of carbon offsets/trading and so on …

“Carr strikes greenhouse deal with European investors”

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s954007.htm [link now dead]

PM – Thursday, 25 September , 2003 Reporter: Peta Donald

(David Kemp slaps it down – not carbon trading.)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Federal Government of Australia had shown time and again that it was not interested in carbon trading or making any international linkages that weren’t bullshit photo-ops with George Bush. This was not to stop the New South Wales government and Bob Carr from pursuing such deals which he did…

What I think we can learn from this is that in a Commonwealth system there are multiple points of entry and pressure, and there is a back-and-forth between States and Federal Government as there is between federal and international systems. When one is failing the other is supposed to pick up the slack and vice versa. That’s the theory -sometimes both are failing …

What happened next – nothing much came of it, it all just kind of petered out, as far as I remember (if you know different, drop me a line!).

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 Australia

September 24, 1989 – Petra Kelly disses the Australian Prime Minister

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 24, 1989, German activist and member of parliament Petra Kelly opined on Australian government policy

WHEN BOB HAWKE cried at a press conference in 1984, his face was plastered all over German newspapers.

That was about the last time matters of any relevance to Australian domestic politics rated even a centimetre of German news space.

That is, until Bob Brown and his team of green independents made it on to the Tasmanian Government benches in May.

According to the founder of the West German Green Party, Petra Kelly, the greens’ success in Tasmania was widely reported – even in the smallest German village.

“I think Bob Brown is probably the most well-known Australian in Europe,” Ms Kelly said from her hotel in Adelaide last week.

“He’s much more widely known than Mr Hawke.”

In Australia for an “ecopolitics” conference at the University of Adelaide, Petra Kelly has attracted media attention for describing Bob Hawke’s moves to capture the environment vote as just “green cosmetic surgery”.

Mealey, E. 1989. Petra sees green over Aussie Politics. Sun Herald, 24 September.

(Petra – the diminutive name – wouldn’t be used for Bob or Andrew. But tbf, has been used for “Boris”)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Petra Kelly was a big star from the German environmental movement and antinuclear movement. Adelaide was a good place to do this stuff and I totally missed it. I was not plugged into those networks and it pisses me off but it is what it is. At that time, btw, everyone in Australia was running around talking about the “greenhouse effect.”

What I think we can learn from this is that the mass media will use diminutive names, first names for women, in a way that they would not for men 

That there were linkages between German and Australian movements and learning; see Christopher Rootes’ article about this which appeared in Environmental Politics.

What happened next is that Petra Kelly died in 1992 – it was probably murder-suicide or possibly an agreed pact we can never know. And Hawke made grand promises about climate action that, well, never got kept. 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.

Categories
Australia Denial

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

Ten years ago, on this day, September 23, 2013, the Australian state broadcaster explained – for the umpteenth time – the dreadful lies the radio shock jocks were peddling.

On 23 September 2013 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program Media Watch explored a textbook example of why too many Australians and their politicians continue to stumble through a fog of confusion and doubt in regard to climate change. The case under the microscope typified irresponsible journalism. 

Media Watch host Paul Barry, with trademark irony, announced: ‘Yes it’s official at last … those stupid scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] got it wrong’, in their latest assessment report. He quoted 2GB breakfast jock Chris Smith from a week earlier saying the IPCC had ‘fessed up’ that its computers had drastically overestimated rising temperatures. ‘That’s a relief,’ said Barry, and how do we know this? ‘Because Chris Smith read it on the front page of last Monday’s Australian newspaper. When it comes to rubbishing the dangers of man-made global warming the shock jocks certainly know who they can trust.’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had been going through a very high pitch culture war on climate policy since 2006, positions had hardened even further and climate denial became “acceptable” (i.e. had lower social and political costs than had been assumed) again from about 2010 onwards. And various so cold shock jocks wallowed in it

What I think we can learn from this is that it is easy to create an echo-chamber of mutually reinforcing bullshit that gets published in newspapers then commentated on, then reported then there is reportage on the commentating of the reportage of the commentating. It is all cheap, it is easy, and it does not need to connect to anything actually scientific.

What happened next

After becoming Prime Minister later in 2013, Tony Abbott proved that he was not a fit leader for the Liberal Party let alone by country. He was turfed by his own party after only narrowly beating an empty chair in a January 2015 vote.

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

September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

Fifty two years ago, on this day, September 22, 1971, (in)famous Australian activist Maurice Crow wrote about the climate crisis …

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone in Australia was running around like a headless chicken saying the apocalypse was at hand from business to mainstream NGOs to the communists. And they had been importing American radical commentary in their International Socialist magazine etc. Maurice Crowe just put an effort at a local spin on it.

What I think we can learn from this is that calls for “system change” were around 50 years ago. And as per a recent article in Environmental Politics, what is meant by system change is a moveable feast.

What happened next

The environmental movement ran aground a bit but as late as 1975 there was a “radical ecology” conference in Melbourne and Crow was part of 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.

Categories
Manchester United Kingdom

September 21, 1993 – Manchester says “no, not hot air”. Yeah, right.

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 21, 1993, the well-meaning but being-used people running the “Partnerships for Change” summit defended themselves from attack.

MANCHESTER, England — Organizers of a world environment summit designed as a sequel to the Rio Earth Summit Tuesday dismissed criticism that the international conference was producing more hot air than hard results.

Conference chairman Martin Holdgate defended the goal of the Partnerships for Change summit in Manchester, saying its purpose was to find practical solutions to international environment problems.

Haycock, G. 1993. Environment summit not flawed, say organizers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at the 1992 Earth Summit UK Prime Minister John Major had offered to host the follow-up conference. This then got split in two, with the “Partnerships for Change” thing, and then a Global Forum supposed to happen in June of the following year (it almost didn’t). Partnerships for Change was rendered effectively useless because the UNFCCC was ratified more quickly than had been expected and it was therefore obvious that the actual negotiations were going to start relatively soon (as they did in Berlin in March April of 1995).

Fun facts – at this Partnerships for Change someone stole the videotape of John Major’s welcome, and also John Gummer (Lord Deben to you) was herded onto a tram and not allowed off.

What I think we can learn from this – just variations of the circle jerk.

Whether or not any given meeting “achieved” its objectives or not is neither here nor there. It comes down to implementation by social movements and civil society organisations that can monitor implementation. Not got those? Then you are left with the usual boom and bust cycle and So It Goes.

xxx

What happened next –

 is that partnerships to change was quickly forgotten the global forum all so quickly forgotten and the cop process began in earnest.

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
Australia

September 21, 1990 – Ministers call for Toronto Target to be federal policy …

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 21, 1990, various state ministers urged Bob Hawke’s Federal Government to do what it had declined to do in May 1989 – agree to decent emissions cuts …

CANBERRA: A meeting of all Australian and New Zealand environment ministers increased pressure on the Federal Cabinet yesterday to commit itself to a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Environment Council (ANZEC) in Alice Springs also urged the Government to push for the target at the Second World Climate Conference, to be held in about six weeks.

Seccombe, 1990. Gas Emission Cut Urged. Sydney Morning Herald, 22 September, p.6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various state governments had made a commitment to the Toronto target but the Australian Federal Government had not. The second World climate conference was due to begin in Geneva shortly (it had been pushed back by four months in order to be a staging post for the incipient international climate negotiations). The Toronto target was one that had been suggested at a conference in June of 1988. Environmentals had wanted a 50% cut by 2015 ceiling. This had been watered down to 20% by 2005.

What I think we can learn from this – there was a time when when politicians were seriously ambitious though perhaps not entirely aware of the actual costs of what they were proposing. Or to be fair they read the reports by people like Demi Greene (see March 1990) and decided it wasn’t too ambitious or too difficult.

What happened next

In October 1990s the Australian Federal Government made a very hedged commitment to Toronto rendering the promise basically meaningless.

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 Capture and Storage Norway

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Ten years ago, on this day, September 20, 2013, the Norwegian government pulled the plug on the Mongstad carbon capture and storage project.

Norway’s government on Friday terminated a full-scale project to capture carbon dioxide at the Mongstad refinery on the country’s western coast, citing high risks connected to the facility. It will be replaced with a carbon capture and storage (CCS) program that is designed to “realize” other full-scale CCS projects in the country.

 https://www.powermag.com/42579/

and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24233443

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly397ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the wheels were falling off the CCS bandwagon. The EU project NER300 was going nowhere. The British first competition head stopped. There were cost overruns at Southern Company. And the Norwegians just pull the plug.

What I think we can learn from this is that technosalvationism is really expensive and sometimes it gets so expensive that it can’t be sustained.

What happened next

 Everyone within a few years agreed to start talking about CCS as the next big thing and along has come hydrogen to assist in that. The game is the game is the game is the game 

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

September 19, 1998 – Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 19, 1998, the Australian Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

A LEADING health advocacy group has called on main political parties to include ecological levies in their taxation plans to stem environmental degradation and its ill-effects on humans.

The Public Health Association, in warning that mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and Murray Valley encephalitis could spread as far south as Sydney in the next 20 years, accused the Government and Opposition of ignoring “a most serious health issue”. In a resolution passed at its annual conference in Hobart on Wednesday, the PHA said the Australian electorate deserved tax reform that would contribute to a sustainable future, advocating “ecotaxes” such as on carbon, which have been implemented in many European countries.

PHA spokesman and director of the National Centre in Epidemiology and Population Health Bob Douglas, who moved the resolution, says there was already evidence that climate change was affecting human health.

Ross River fever has been increasing substantially over the past five or six years; outbreaks of Japanese encephalitis have occurred in northern Australia; while multiple sub-types of dengue fever have emerged in Townsville over the past few years.

Malaria also threatens to again become endemic.

“There are very serious concerns that in a worst case scenario the survival of humans is under threat,” Professor Douglas says. “If we go on having rising temperatures with changes in the level of the sea, increased susceptibility to immune paralysis by ultraviolet radiation and if the temperatures make less our food sustainability, we are in some danger of an ecological collapse.”

The proposed eco-taxes would be on activities releasing pollutants such as fossil fuels, for a carbon tax, or nitrogen and sulphur oxides, the components of acid rain.

“We believe most Australians are concerned at the need to constrain greenhouse emissions, which, if they continue at their current rate, will result in ecological changes profoundly damaging to human health,” the resolution says.

Anon. 1998. Association calls for life-saving green taxes. The Australian, September 19, 1998 Page: 044

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 25 years ago it was patently obvious what was coming. This was before the creation of Environmental Doctors for Australia or whatever it’s called. It was also obvious that John Howard was not interested in doing anything about environmental issues. There was an election coming which he was to win …

What I think we can learn from this is that, again, the ideas to fix the problems are all around us but they are rendered politically impossible by powerful organised vested interests.

What happened next – no eco taxes were brought in. We have squandered the past quarter of a century and are not prepared for the amplifying concatenating public health crisis and this my friends is why I’m very glad that I did not breed.

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
Denial

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

Ten years ago, on this day, September 18, 2013, a bunch of sad denialists did their sad denial …

The NIPCC’s fourth report, entitled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, was published

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that they were keeping on keeping on with their ludicrous cherry-picked data and whataboutery. It had become part of their social identity and the echo chamber kept echoing. They were presenting stuff at their own “Heartland Institute” meetings and so forth but really by this time it was getting a bit pathetic.

What I think we can learn from this is that old white men will keep on being embarrassing long beyond the point at which it has become embarrassing

What happened next – the efforts at denial have mostly now transformed into what is called lukewarmism, or attribution/impact denialism. There’s less denial about the planet warming, but there is denial about the consequences of the warming or the causes of the warming.

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