Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Twelve years ago, on this day, August 22, 2011 , another anti-”carbon tax” rally flops

Come 22 August [2011], the event is a screaming flop. Three hundred people gather on the lawns outside Parliament House, and a ragtag of trucks circle it blowing their horns. Jones, alongside his mate Tony Abbott, addresses the crowd who all holler and howl and demand Gillard’s head over the carbon pricing scheme. Perhaps aware of what a dud he’s partly responsible for, Jones sensationally accuses the ACT Police of stopping ‘thousands’ from attending the rally and blocking ‘hundreds of trucks’ at the ACT border – as he describes it, ‘the most disgraceful thing to happen to our democracy.’

(Walsh, 2013:54-5) The Stalking of Julia Gillard      

An angry crowd of about 300 people gathered on the Australian Parliament lawns as 200 vehicles from all over the country rolled around Canberra blowing their horns, for what protesters called the convoy of no confidence.      Cummings, T. 2011. When things turned ugly. ABC News, 23 August.

There was an ugly confrontation in Canberra yesterday, one that could potentially have been very nasty indeed.

It had nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the Convoy of No Confidence that rolled into our nation’s capital, nothing to do with the carbon tax, or live exports, or any of that.

and

I wonder whether the Convoy of No Confidence will be an unexpected pivot point in Australian politics.

Carpenter, N. 2011. Convoy Contempt could be of some consequence. The Drum, 29 August. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-29/carpenter-convoy-contempt-could-be-of-some-consequence/2860718

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first half of 2011 had been totally dominated by the question of an emissions trading scheme. Tony Abbott had made all sorts of outlandish claims about the cost and risk there had been marches and protests, most notoriously on March 23rd in Canberra. This was an attempt to show enormous opposition. But I think many people were tired and bored and realised that by now they had lost, and that Gillard was going to be successful in getting the legislation through.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is not just left wing progressive protest groups who are prone to burnout and exhaustion. There is an emotacycle collapsing also for those who are trying to stand in the way of climate action, who  are also prone to burnout and exhausting themselves.

What happened next 

Julia Gillard’s legislation did indeed get through. The scheme started on the 1st of July 2012 and was then abolished by the next government headed by Tony Abbott. Emissions started climbing again. (There is some argument that the perceived success of the emissions trading scheme was down to more hydro from Tasmania in the national electricity grid at the 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.

References/further reading

 Willingham, R. 2011. Convoy of no confidence runs short on revs. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August 2011.

Categories
Australia

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

Twenty three years ago, on this day, August 22, 2000, the first effort at getting an emissions trading scheme for Australia died a death, killed off by climate denier Nick Minchin.

22 August 2000. Cabinet meeting at which Minchin beats Hill on a domestic emissions trading scheme. (See Crabbe, 23 Aug Advertiser etc)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been lots of talk about emissions trading in the previous two or 3 years both at a national and especially New South Wales level because it seemed Australia might ratify the Kyoto Protocol. And if it did it would want to have its own emission trading scheme and perhaps make lots of money from growing trees. The best laid plans had not really come to fruition, and this was the first body blow – the rejection of a national emissions trading scheme.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have spent a veeery long time coming up with all sorts of visions and schemes rather than reducing our emissions in a safe and fair way by changing behaviours and incentives for energy efficiency etc.

What happened next

John Howard, to no-one’s surprise ruled out Kyoto ratification in 2002. In 2003 the idea of emissions trading scheme came back to cabinet and this time Cabinet was united in favour but Howard vetoed it LINK.

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
Energy United Nations

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference.

Sixty two years ago, on this day, August 21, 1961, a United Nations conference on new sources of energy began.

21-31 August 1961 UN conference on new sources of energy (see Ritchie-Calder, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dec 1961) 

Also his comments on 1975 30 August Science show. (interviewed by Robyn Williams)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that new sources of energy especially for countries without their own supplies of oil, coal and gas were going to be needed if the world were going to “develop”. There was also the point that fossil fuel supplies were not going to last forever. Climate change was not an issue, at least not one that was publicly discussed and I doubt it got much traction anywhere, because the science was simply not mature enough or well enough known.

What I think we can learn from this is that questions about energy justice have been around for a very long time and we never quite manage to crack it, really.

What happened next, by 1968 environmental problems were obvious enough that Sweden was successful in getting the UN to agree to hold a conference. And one of the topics was what we now call “climate change.”

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

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3833582?ln=en

Categories
Activism

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Five years ago, on this day, August 20, 2018, Greta Thunberg did her first school strike.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 408ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Greta Thunberg was the daughter of a famous Swedish opera singer and her very supportive dad. She had been in severe emotional mental distress because of climate change, not eating/agoraphobic etc. You can read about it in her book and I recommend you do.

It was a simple straightforward protest that has become mythology-sized and some people want to believe that she is the pawn of a globalist movement and everything is mediated and manipulated. And they find “proof” of this, to their own satisfaction. And on and on we go.

What I think we can learn from this is that the media latch on to to young people and ‘odd’ “people as the “stars” of a movement…

 Greta is very smart and very very funny.

What happened next

The climate movement went up like a rocket and has come down like a stick because it doesn’t know how to do anything other than marches and rallies and sleepovers.

There’s an impressive amount of Just Stop Oil action, but the broader movement doesn’t have a granular capacity… Oh well, too late now anyway.

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 States of America

August 19, 1968 – Is Man Spoiling the Weather? (yes)

Fifty five years ago, on this day, August 19, 1968, a major US news magazine asks the right question…

August 19 1968. “Is Man Spoiling the Weather? What the Experts Say,” U.S. News and World Report, August 19, 1968, p. 61.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that further work by US scientists was beginning to look more closely at carbon dioxide. There have been reports by the National Academy of Science and the beginnings of more confident minority statements. But this time and even much later the article was still, understandably, couched in a “will we die in fire or will we die in ice?” kind of thing. 

What I think we can learn from this nothing much except that the media was talking about this for a long time.

What happened next

 1970 is the year that you really start to say carbon dioxide is emerging as a prominent member of the various threats that people are putting forward as long-term problems.

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
Science Scientists United Kingdom

 August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

Forty eight years ago, on this day, August 18, 1975, a bunch of people who had been thinking about man’s impact on the climate for quite a while get together in Norwich, England, for a meeting about what’s coming. They decide that there’s no ice age on its way but there IS a decent chance of a large amount of warming…

1975  18-23 August 1975 Norwich meeting which ended speculation about possible cooling.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/the_great_global_cooling_myth.html

Paterson 1996 is good on this…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was interested in the weather – was it getting colder? was it getting warmer? There had been public pronouncement in both directions including, infamously, the 1971 Rasool and Schneider paper. The popular version of this was The Weather Machine by Nigel Calder which became a BBC documentary. And there were questions asked in the House of Commons. 

But the people who actually studied the climate issue were looking closely at carbon dioxide and by now beginning to think this is the issue – we’re going to get warming not a cooling. Wally Broeker’s paper in Science had just been published a month earlier and the National Academy of Science had started its 2-year study on understanding climate.

What I think we can learn from this is that although doubt continued in public because bad ideas and stories have a long half-life this workshop was the moment at which any lingering doubts about the cooling were put to one side, at least in the minds of people who knew what they were talking about.

What happened next was that by 1976 the World Meteorological Organisation was making statements about the likelihood of warming. It was also a very very hot summer in Europe and especially the United Kingdom the 1976 drought which was until 1995 rather the hottest for years. And 2022 was much hotter globally.

But we get used to anything – until we can’t…

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 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.