Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 17, 1998, an Australian Parliament committee looks at Emissions Trading as the ‘way forward’.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts into the possible introduction of trading in this new commodity. (Carbon) http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_committees?url=environ/greenhse/gasrpt/finalrpt.pdf

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 extorted an extremely sweet deal at the Kyoto conference in December 1997. This was the starting gun for the idea of emissions trading schemes in different countries which would ultimately linked up and make bankers and traders rich while, as a sideline, “saving the world on the cheap.” 

The Australian government had signed the Kyoto protocol document in April of 1998. The leak about ratification only happening if the Americans ratified will still a month away, so at this precise moment the idea of Australia having its own emissions trading scheme that then linked up to other emissions trading schemes was not the fantasy that we would look on it as with 25 years of bruising experience.

What I think we can learn from this is that standing committees/senate inquiries house of reps stuff, it’s all nice busy work or undergrowth for policy wonks where they can can justify their money they are on, make professional connections and try to create a common sense agreement around whatever their particular pet solution is. Policy subsystems, policy constituencies etc etc.

What happened next is a proposal for an emissions trading scheme for Australia went to John Howard’s cabinet in the year 2000 killed off by Nick Minchin from South Australia the Sydney’s future exchange never got off the drawing board.

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
Geoeingeering New Zealand

 August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 17, 1989, more silly technofixes got proposed.

A giant and costly space screen to reduce sunlight and the effects of global warming is proposed by a Canterbury University scientist.

**FULL_TEXT Mr Michael Mautner writes in a letter in yesterday’s Washington Post that if atmospheric means of reducing the effects of greenhouse warming fail, “it may be possible to erect a space screen that would reduce the incident sunlight on Earth.”

Anon. 1989. Space shield plan to cut sunlight. New Zealand Herald, 17 August. 

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 everyone was running around with their pet opinion about the greenhouse effect and “technological solutions”. The prospect of an international climate treaty was rising, and the need therefore for technological fixes was becoming apparent (because Gaia forbid that you do anything about imperialism and consumerism).

What I think we can learn from this is that the dream of controlling the weather and planetary engineering had been around at least since the 1950s as a realistic prospect (see for example all of the effort around weather modification in the 50s and 60s see Jason Fleming’s book for this). 

People always reach for the outlandish and eye-catching because it will get them attention.

What happened next

 We still do not have space mirrors but the idea of solar radiation management from seeding clouds with sulphur still seems to have a life see for example the journal environmental politics and it’s articles about solar geoengineering.

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
United Kingdom

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

Forty one years ago, on this day, August 17, 1982, UK diplomat Crispin Tickell warned us all we might get crispy…

Tickell, C. (1982) The experiment that could become too hot to handle. The Times, August 17, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tickell had been beavering away on the climate issue for seven years by this stage. And earlier in the year, James Hansen and Herman Flohn had made some pretty big bold statements at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Washington DC that had been reported in the New York Times. The IEA and the OECD, were continuing to hold workshops, so was the UNEP. And for Tickell the issue couldn’t wouldn’t go away because he understood what was at stake. Bless him. 

What I think we can learn from this

Elites really knew. And didn’t act. Some “elites” (the upper crust is just a bunch of crumbs sticking together).

What happened next

Tickell and others (John Houghton etc) finally got through to Thatcher in 1988. She gave her speech and that made it possible to talk about the issue/impossible not to…

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 International processes United States of America

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 16, 2002, The Times Newspaper reports

Conservative lobbyists in the US funded by Esso have urged President Bush to derail the Earth summit in Johannesburg because it is anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western.

Browne, A. 2002. USA: Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit ,The Times, August 16

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


The context was it was 10 years since Rio and the United Nations does like a good round number conference. George Dubya Bush had recently been doing some talk about “clean skies” and technology, this and that. 

And the anti Climate Lobby groups just wanted to make sure that he didn’t slip. So this was laying down some “suppressing fire” and to force proponents of action to expend energy in simply keeping climate change (literally) ‘on the agenda.’ 

What I think we can learn from this

What’s interesting, what we can learn is, this is what they do. They’re constantly laying down “suppressing fire”, which didn’t really work as well as they’d hoped. But it makes you feel good when you do it, keeps you in a job, makes you test your ammo, and your guns, so why not? I can say the language is extraordinary, but nothing special. They do genuinely frame it as liberty and freedom and democracy versus the evil globalist at least for public consumption. 

What happened next

Climate stayed on the agenda. Bush stayed a prick. The carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 16, 2010, protestors tried to keep issues on the agenda 

Even outside the venue, the protestors simply went through the motions. There were four anti-abortion advocates with basic placards, a huge plastic marijuana joint, two people dressed as polar bears, and another dressed as a blue elephant. But they were not so much demonstrating as loitering.

(Cassidy, 2010:202)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this was the middle of an election campaign. And even the polar bear can’t be bothered. Everyone’s just going through the motions.

What I think we can learn from this

The polar bear costumes just don’t work. They should be hung up.

What happened next

Gillard was faced with painful electoral math and therefore had to bring carbon pricing back on to the table. 

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
Activism Australia

August 15, 2010 – a walk against warming fails to catch fire. #RepertoireRot

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 15, 2010, the “walk against warming” … waned

From 40,000 in 2006 to barely 10,000 in 2010. That’s the number of people who protested yesterday against “the greatest moral challenge since the dawn of time” or something (© KRudd). Maybe it’s because the population is slowly waking up…

The waning "Walk against Warming"

and

More than 500 protesters gathered by Lake Burley Griffin and marched to Parliament House yesterday to demonstrate their support for climate change action. Walk against Warming, held simultaneously around the country, was timed to coincide with the lead-up to Saturday’s federal election. Tens of thousands of people took part across Australia, with 10,000 filling the streets of Sydney’s CBD. Protesters also marched in Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne and Perth.

Kretowicz, E. 2010. TURNING UP THE HEAT; Climate crusaders walk against warming. Canberra Times, 16 August, p.4.

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

The context was as per the BZE post a couple of days ago, the air has kind of gone out of the issue. People are confused, frustrated, bored, fed up, disappointed. They feel they were conned by Kevin Rudd, who had been revealed to be just another cowardly scuzzy politician. And what’s the point of going on a march for that especially when there’s an election coming  and you don’t know who might win it. People get tired of marching. 

What happened next? 

Labor’s Julia Gillard, because of the electoral math, was forced to reintroduce an emissions trading scheme. This was a non negotiable with both the Greens but also some of the Independents like Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott. 

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
Academia Activism Australia

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 14, 2002, Aussie economists tried to get the smallest, most inadequate action taken…

“In a further response to what many see as Australia’s failure on the environment, more than 270 of the country’s academic economists called on 14 August [2002] for Prime Minister John Howard to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without delay. Howard rejected the Kyoto Protocol in June this year, stating that it would not be in the country’s interest to ratify without the inclusion of the US and developing nations. This is despite the fact that a recent survey of Australian citizens revealed that 71% believe it would be in the country’s interest to ratify.

“As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it serious environmental, economic and social risks and that preventive steps are justified,” says a statement by the economists. “Policy options are available that would slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia, and these may in fact improve productivity in the long term.”

However, Environment and Heritage Minister Dr David Kemp, told journalists on 19 August that Australia intends to keep to the targets laid out in the Kyoto Protocol, despite the fact that the country will not ratify.”

http://www.edie.net/news/16/Australias-environment-is-in-reverse/5878/

Excerpt from report by Radio Australia on 14 August

The Australian government is under further pressure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in the lead-up to the World Environment Summit in Johannesburg later this month. Samantha Hawley reports:

[Hawley] More than 250 economists have sent a message to the federal government, urging it to sign up to the protocol before the Johannesburg summit begins. Clive Hamilton, from the policy think tank, the Australia Institute, says the economists believe it will increase jobs and living standards.

[Hamilton] It really does throw the question to the prime minister on what basis is he making these claims on the economic cost ofKyoto. [End of recording]

[Passage omitted]

[Hawley] The call comes as the government moves to release its long-awaited greenhouse gas abatement figures tomorrow, which were originally due out before the election.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had, on Earth Day (June 5) announced he would not send the Kyoto Protocol for ratification through the Australian parliament. Clive Hamilton/Australia Institute got 270 economists together to do an open letter.

What I think we can learn from this

This is the sort of thing you have to do to raise the cost of bad behaviour, show that other people see the world differently. It didn’t work, but that’s not the fault of the people who tried it.

What happened next

Howard continued to be an asshat. Knocked down an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2003.

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 United States of America

August 13, 2007 –  Newsweek nails denialists

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 13, 2007, the US publication Newsweek, which had been reporting on carbon dioxide build-up since 1953, had a very good report on the tactics of the denialists, under the clever title “The Truth about Denial.”

“Organisations and companies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil emphasise conservative climate change scenarios and highlight the potential economic costs of stricter controls” (Sharon Begley, “The Truth about Denial”, Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Vale Sharon Begley – https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/17/sharon-begley-path-breaking-science-journalist-dies/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was absolutely back on the agenda with Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” and the fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. There was renewed vigour in the international process with lots of talk about what would replace the Kyoto Protocol. And therefore, the denialists were up to their old tricks. Sharon Begley’s article is a good summation of how and why they do what they do. 

What I think we can learn from this

Mainstream press articles can often give you the facts you need. You may need to bolt on a decent theoretical framework, but serious mainstream media (often the business press is best) can give you a bunch of worthwhile facts to be going on with.

Btw, from reading this article, it is a tolerably accurate picture of incumbents’ behaviour. In any democratic society (a) these tactics would be taughtf in school so people could defend their minds against the onslaught  and (b) of course, you would not need to be taught it because there would laws and structures that prevented the ownership of the government by concentrated economic interests. 

What happened next

The denial kept going, becoming a hydra and a T1000 at the same time.

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

 August 12, 2010 – BZE launches energy plan for Australia

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 12, 2010, the activist group “Beyond Zero Emissions” holds a Sydney launch of its “Stationary Energy Plan”, with recently toppled Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull on the stage…

Turnbull’s talk

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/bze-plan-100-renewables-2020-clean-public-meeting-discussion

http://bze.org.au/media/newswire/zero-carbon-australia-sydney-launch-event-video-bob-carr-and-malcolm-turnbull-100912 (dead link)

Critique – https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Rudd government’s entirely unambitious climate policies the CPRS had taken up all the oxygen in 2009. The CPRS had then fallen on its face, and Rudd had been unable to summon the courage to call an election on the issue, or take up the suggestion of the Greens for a carbon tax. The activist group Beyond Zero Emissions decided to try to change the narrative with a plan for well beyond zero emissions. 

What I think we can learn from this

This sort of bold policymaking from outside the mainstream is really good at forcing the government of the day and the opposition to slightly raise their ambition – or at least ramp up their rhetoric, albeit usually within pre existing and very technocratic boundaries The kind of breakthrough transformational stuff that is proposed, rarely, if ever, gets adopted wholesale, especially if the agenda is mature (i.e. there are lots of middle-class and rich people in and funding think tanks designed to maintain their positions).

What happened next

BZE staggered on, there were personality conflicts. And then after a while it stops being quite so fresh. It became obvious to everyone that the moment has passed, and it was someone else’s 15 minutes next time…

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

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 11, 2005, Australian activists took action.

On 11 August 2005 approximately 50 student environmentalists and Greenpeace volunteers unfurled a “Quit Coal” banner outside the plant while 12 activists occupied the brown coal pit, with two locking themselves to coal dredging equipment. This action drew worldwide attention to Hazelwood’s CO2 emissions and their harmful impacts on the global climate. (Wikipedia on Hazelwood)

See also https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-08-11/police-remove-greenpeace-mine-activists/2078834

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

The context was that the Victorian Government was continuing to talk about expanding and continuing with Hazelwood, which was burning brown coal. This, while abundant, was truly filthy. So Greenpeace were doing their best to keep the issue on the agenda, and to accelerate the demise of Hazelwood. 

What I think we can learn from this

Transitions take a long time. Involve a lot of blood sweat and tears.

What happened next

It took a long while. But finally, they won. Hazelwood is Toast and Victoria is going for wind and renewables.

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.