Thirteen years ago, on this day, October 7, 2010, newly re-elected (sort of) Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided not to go ahead with her “citizens’ assembly” wheeze from the election campaign. There’ll be a multi-party climate change committee instead …
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in order to try to square the circle about climate change Gillard had proposed a climate assembly on the election campaign. This was widely perceived as a way of kicking the whole idea into the long grass clearly after negotiating with the independents and the Greens – legislating and emissions trading scheme was the price of their support. The whole climate assembly idea was simply no longer relevant, and so it was killed off. We got the multi-party committee on climate change. The liberals were invited to participate, but it was not in their interests to do so; they would rather be outside the tent pissing in …
What I think we can learn from this is that participatory structures like “climate assemblies” or “citizens assemblies” can be used to defer decision-making and to give everyone a sandpit to play in. It always comes back to the basic question of who is going to implement this and who’s going to monitor whether it gets done or not.
And if you’re not talking about that then all you’re doing is setting yourself up for failure down the road. But talking about that brings up lots of difficult questions about building sustained and sustainable groups, learning new skills, sharing their skills. Embedding those skills within a group at all tremendously difficult instead let’s just have the orgasmic moment.
What happened next
The multi-party committee on climate change came up with the ETS proposal and suggested the emissions trading the Climate Commission and so forth. And they all got along more or less but everybody knew that by 2013 ahead of the next election the happy families would fall apart, and the Greens would need to split off in order to shore up their vote. And Labor would also want to pin any failures on the Greens. And so it came to pass. Meanwhile the citizens’ assembly idea keeps getting put forward by naive or stupid or careerist dickheads.
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.
Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 6, 1989, the Hawke government got a briefing from people who knew what they were talking about. Nobody can say they were not warmed. Sorry, warned ….
Two topics of considerable importance both to the Government and to the nation are being discussed at today’s meeting. They are global climatic change and the issues it raises for Australia, and resources for science and technology and their utilisation.
Also included in your press kits is a paper describing recent developments in government policies for science and technology and significant actions taken since the may statement ‘ Science and Technology for Australia’. Global Climatic Change Issues for Australia This morning the Council is discussing the scientific evidence for the greenhouse effect and considering the effects of possible changes.
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 even having a “science council” was a relatively new thing. Politicians tend not like to be told that what they’re doing is going to have bad consequences. They would rather be able to pretend that nobody told them. The leader of this group was Ralph Slayter, who had been around for yonks and had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up no later than 1969 and possibly a lot earlier. Hawke was facing an election in a few months, so being able to dress himself up as responsive and aware were going to help him with green votes. (Am I too cynical?)
What I think we can learn from this
There is an interplay between the science, the scientists, the politicians and the politics. The idea that the politicians must also always “listen to the science and the scientist” is a comforting one, but reality is far harder because there isn’t one settled science. You also have a difference between production science and impact science and anyway the whole thing is shot through with questions about appetites for risk and what you are finally aiming at. The claim that politicians should be under the thumb of scientists is “risky” shall we say.
What happened next
Various science panels have persisted. Famously under Howard the chief scientific advisor role was part-time and it was filled by someone who also simultaneously working for the mining company Rio Tinto. In 2011 the chief scientific advisor quit and the assumption is it is because she wasn’t being listened to and not enough action was being taken on climate change
But ultimately the people to blame for that are the citizens of democracies not getting stuck in and being democratic actors. But then, that brings us back to bureaucracy and the neoliberal state and neoliberal societies and and what’s that line by Brecht about the government being very disappointed in the people and abolishing them in electing a new one (this was after the East German workers’ uprising in 1953).
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
Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 5, 1992, REM’s album Automatic for the People was released. It contains the stone-cold classic “Ignoreland.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that twelve years of Republican Party presidents were close to coming to an end – if Clinton could win the presidency which of course he did.
REM were global superstars by this point and memories of the “Republican Revolution” were still fresh in the minds of people who had an inkling of how doomed we were.
What I think we can learn from this
This along with Bobby Conn’s “Never get ahead” is one of the great songs about neoliberalism – and the media in this case. If you can’t grok the role of the media within the state-corporate nexus, as a means of limiting information and debate, then there’s no hope for you. Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model is necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) for you, my friend…
What happened next
REM got paid silly money. Did some great songs bless.
Neoliberalism continued in people’s minds and hearts and was ultimately responsible for the collapse of human civilisation in the 2030s.
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.
Forty-five years ago, on this day, October 4, 1978, senior UK civil servants and scientific advisors began a short bunch of meetings…
“The Interdepartmental Group on Climatology (IGC) first met on 4 October 1978. Its task was to specify a research programme that might answer long-term questions about climate change, while keeping national programmes co-ordinated with the rapidly expanding international projects, such as those of the European Economic Community (EEC) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as well as research in the USA.”
Agar, 2015
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the British state had been aware of potential climate change for a very long time. By 1967 the issue was cropping up on television. A junior minister, Lord Kennet, had written a crucial memo in July 1968, and the first Environment White Paper mentioned carbon dioxide as a potential problem. But Met Office Supremo John Mason had managed to slow things down despite the best efforts of various civil servants and scientists. Eventually though, an interdepartmental committee was formed.
What I think we can learn from this is that the British state response was this weak at this time. Though to be entirely fair, there was a lot going on in terms of industrial unrest, Northern Ireland the IMF crisis you name it. The 1976 drought could be dismissed as a one-off, of course
Interdepartmental committees are going to follow the usual lowest common denominator trajectory, with big departments able to act as a veto on anything they don’t like and small departments knowing that and seeing no point in rocking the boat…
What happened next
The interdepartmental committee report, which was pretty weak, was not released until after the change in government. Members of the Conservative cabinet of Margaret Thatcher almost just filed it away without it even being seen.
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.
Forty eight years ago, on this day, October 3, 1975, a couple of members of Congress (One Republican and two Democrat) introduced some legislation. It failed, but next year…
“In October 1975, Brown, Lawrence Winn (R-KS), and Phillip Hayes (D-IN) introduced the first bill in American history to establish a national climate program: U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H.R. 10013, A Bill to Authorize and Direct the Establishment of a Coordinated National Program Relating to Climate (Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, 1975). First attempt at climate program legislation https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/hr10013
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 there had been ongoing concern about changing weather patterns, famines, ice ages, you name it. So having George Brown and others try and get some money for science and scientists is not terribly surprising. You’d had by this point Wally Broekers article in Science as well…
What I think we can learn from this
Decent politicians – and they do exist – try and mobilise state funding for decent science it’s always an uphill battle
What happened next
the bill fell as these sorts of bills usually do first time round Brown persisted and and in 1977 Jimmy Carter signed the first climate act meanwhile in the United Kingdom and Australia they were f****** around and would ultimately find out
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.
On this day, 9 years ago, yet another promise of imminent “low emissions technologies” was made…
2014 INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP TO DEVELOP LOW EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES Statement from Brendan Pearson, Chief Executive, Minerals Council of Australia The Minerals Council of Australia today announced the establishment of an industry-led Leadership Roundtable for the development of Low Emissions Technologies for Fossil Fuels. The Roundtable will be chaired by Mr Stewart Butel, Managing Director of Wesfarmers Resources Limited, Chair of COAL21* and a Director of the Minerals Council of Australia. Membership will include senior representatives from the coal, oil and gas, and power generation industries, research organisations, federal and state governments and the Global CCS Institute.The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that although Tony Abbott was now Prime Minister (though not for much longer, it turned out!), the fossil industry still felt the need to say the right things.
What I think we can learn from this
Endless promises. It would be funny if it were not tragi.
What happened next
The usual – nothing substantive.
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.
Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 1, 1997, an international conference on Environmental Justice took place in Melbourne.
More than 400 academics and environmental activists from 30 countries attending an Environmental Justice conference at the University of Melbourne heard on Wednesday [1st October] that much of the Federal Government’s greenhouse gas research had been funded by the fossil-fuel industry.
Dent, S. 1997. Greens see red on gas. Herald-Sun, 3 October.
[Environmental Justice: Global Ethics for the 21st Century : International Academic Conference of the University of Melbourne, Australia, October 1st-3rd 1997.]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.6=5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by 1997 it was obvious that the international negotiations were not going very well. The Kyoto conference which was then impending, was likely to have a pretty watered-down, scientifically inadequate agreement on emissions reductions. There had already been a “Countdown to Kyoto” conference in Canberra. Meanwhile the Howard government had been busy slicing and dicing the CSIRO and other potential problems.
What I think we can learn from this
The hand-wringing about fossil- fuel funding can be overdone. “Intellectuals’ ‘ have always sucked up to power structures, be they the church, the state or corporations – those people with the money, who can dish out the prestige and the cushy living. Don’t be surprised.
What happened next
The fossil fuel gang had continued to dominate. They have tightened their grip in most ways like an anaconda. But still occasionally some academic will try and tell the truth and will get publicly punished for it as a lesson to the others
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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, September 30, 1969, a US alternative paper The Spectator (as opposed to the British right-wing one!) ran a story about environmental problems, including build up of carbon dioxide and the effects it might have…
30 Sep 1969 Bruce Williamson squib in Spectator mentions climate, channels Moynihan line on “goodbye New York”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by late 1969 and in the aftermath of Daniel Moynihan’s comments people were familiar with the problem of carbon dioxide enough to be make knowing jokes.
What I think we can learn from this – the question of carbon dioxide build-up was well enough understood by the late 1960s to be the object of squibs and comic asides.
What happened next
In late January 1970 a documentary called “And on the 8th Day” appeared on British television, helping people understand what was actually at stake.
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.
Twenty three years ago, on this day, September 29, 2000, George Bush, trying to shore up his vote among Republicans who cared about conserving a habitable planet (they did exist, back then), makes a promise that he wouldn’t keep.
“We will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time.”
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 Bush was in a tight race with Al Gore. Ralph Nader was taking votes maybe more from Gore than him, but Bush needed to make the right noises so that centrist Republicans and independents who cared about climate might consider voting for him. Bush’s daddy had, in 1988, made similar “I will act on the greenhouse effect” promises and then done fuck all.
What I think we can learn from this as per Nick Tomalin, “they lie they lie they lie,” especially at elections.
What happened next
When de facto president Cheney took office he shat all over this fantasised about building new power stations and pulled the US out of the Kyoto negotiations
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 28, 2008, a brilliant and too-relevant-for-words animation was unleashed on the world.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was people were indeed waking up and freaking out but not fast enough and in large enough numbers to make a difference. And they couldn’t join groups because they weren’t any decent functioning groups anymore, just various sects and zombie repertoire outfits.
What I think we can learn from this – Leo Murray is insanely talented.
What happened next
The climate movement imploded at the end of 2009 and into 2010. And we still don’t really have a movement, just a bunch of groups, rising and falling, unaware of any of the history, of what is needed. Or aware of what is needed but unable to do it. Because, reasons.
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.
