Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United States of America

January 4, 2005 – Senator James Inhofe exemplifies denialist bullshit

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 4th, 2005, Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) was at it again…

To cite one of innumerable examples – provided by realclimate.org – during a speech given at the opening senate session on January 4, 2005, Inhofe said: “we are (…) in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age”, which was a reference to the novelist Michael Crichton and contradicts all published scientific papers, including the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report, which states that human activities are having a significant influence on our changing climate.

http://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/hall_of_shame

Senator Inhofe on Climate Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, after a brief period of agreement, largely that the greenhouse effect was a serious issue, the Republican Party had by the early 90s fallen largely into step with the fossil fuel and industrial interests it used to fully represent, and said that this was another liberal hoax.

You can read about the ways that the culture war started in the late Ross Gelbspan’s two books, The Heat Is On: The High Stakes Battle over Earth’s Threatened Climate, and then later The Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis–And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster

What I think we can learn from this is that old white men have a heft their words, no matter how demented are given far more credence because of their positions, often

What happened next

Inhofe kept being Inhofe, until he died in July 2024. The emissions kept climbing and in and our fate is sealed. To be honest, it was probably sealed already before 20 years ago,

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: 

January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

January 4, 1982 – Global 2000 Report updated
Categories
Australia Cultural responses

January 3, 1988 – The Sea and Summer, early Australian cli-fi, is reviewed.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 3rd, 1988 the Australian newspaper the Sun Herald, ran a review of The Sea and Summer by George Turner  under the heading “Melbourne is drowning” (possibly gleeful, given the Sydney-Melbourne rivalry).

The book itself? As Ruth Morgan explains

“Over a decade after his novel The Cupboard Under the Stairs won the Miles Franklin Award in 1963, Turner had turned to writing science fiction (Milner, ‘The Sea’ 112). The Sea and Summer, published as Drowning Towers (1988) in the United States, had earlier appeared as a short story, ‘The Fittest’ (1985), and reflected the growing popular awareness of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change in Australia. Turner envisioned a Melbourne drowned as a result of rising sea levels in the middle of the twenty-first century, its population cleaved into haves and havenots, the Sweet and the Swill.” (Morgan, 2014).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “the Greenhouse Effect” was becoming newsworthy, thanks to a combination of the ozone hole (sensitising people to atmospheric pollution generally) and the post-Villach efforts of scientists, including at the Australian CSIRO.

What I think we can learn from this

When an issue is “hot” (i.e. salient) then journalists will figure out a hook, books that might otherwise not get reviewed, get reviewed.

What happened next

In the second half of 1988 climate change became a public policy issue, that politicians etc had to have opinions about, say warm words about etc.  

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

Morgan, Ruth. ‘Imagining a Greenhouse Future: Scientific and Literary Depictions of Climate Change in 1980s Australia.’ Australian Humanities Review 57 (2014): 43-60.

Turner, G. 1987. The Sea, the Summer

Also on this day: 

January 3, 1984 – US report on energy transition to combat climate released.

Jan 3, 1992 – Greenpeace vs POTUS on Climate Change

January 3, 2007 – Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, says Union of Concerned Scientists

Categories
Australia

January 2, 2016 – Australian environmental NGOs write another wish list…

Nine years ago, on this day, January 2nd, 2016, green groups seek planning permission for more castles in the air…

 A “new deal” blueprint for sweeping reform of Australia’s environment laws that puts climate change at the centre of ­future economic decision-­making is being prepared by a coalition of 40 leading conser­vation groups.

The reform agenda marks an aggressive new phase in environmental lobbying in the wake of the Paris climate meeting, at which Australia agreed to a new “high ambition” agenda to limit future warming to 1.5C.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/green-groups-push-for-environmental-law-reform/news-story/f01474a7609d8041f2f96ef46a2d3d29

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 403ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a perfectly reasonable (if totally inadequate) emissions trading scheme had been junked by Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2014.  But Australia was now led by a “green” Liberal, Malcolm Turnbull, and greenie groups felt that there might be some wiggle room. And presumably, needed to be seen to be busy, for reasons of self-respect, career and getting direct debits from guilty/frustrated middle-class people.

What I think we can learn from this

The environmental NGOs are always writing these wish lists, as challenges (1988’s “Green Gauntlet”, anyone) and the politicians are always either flat out ignoring them or else pretending to listen while doing virtually nothing.

What happened next

Turnbull got turfed by another Liberal (seriously, these were hilarious days). Eventually a Labor government won office and instantly did everything on this 2016 list. Oh yes.  (sarcasm).

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: 

January 2, 1955 – Commie newspaper covers climate

January 2, 2008 – tiresome (but sound) “Green Fatigue” warning is made

.Jan 2, 2014- “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop,

Categories
Carbon Pricing Europe

January 1, 2005 – the EU Emissions Trading Scheme begins.

Twenty  years ago, on this day, January 1st, 2005, the EU launched its emissions trading scheme. It will drive down the cost of “decarbonisation” and send long and loud signals to investors, pay for carbon capture and storage and generally Save The World. Oh yes… 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the idea of emissions trading for climate had been around since the early 1990s – an analogy was drawn with sulphur dioxide trading around acid rain in the US/Canada.  But there had been a lot of skepticism about whether it would “work” – because powerful vested interests would find way to game the system, by getting exemptions, or free allocations etc, and the price signal would end up simply not being loud enough to drive change among investors, industry or consumers.  But the Americans were very keen. And see this – 

The EU ETS would likely not have come into existence without the Kyoto Protocol, but the story of that relationship contains its share of irony. Briefly, emissions trading is an American institutional innovation in environmental regulation that was forced into the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol by the United States in late 1997 in the face of strong opposition from the EU. Resistance to the concept continued until the new American president pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, after which European opposition to emissions trading faded. 

Ellerman, A. D., & Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results.

What I think we can learn from this

The defeat of the proposed European Carbon Tax in 1991-2 was the killer victory (alongside Bush versus targets and timetables for Rio).  And emissions trading schemes are a nice-to-have, at best. At worst, they are a tar pit for energy, attention and a great delaying tactic, while the consultants get rich.

What happened next

Europe’s emissions have come down a bit – if you count territorially.  If you look at consumption, and embedded carbon, maybe not quite so much…

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

Convery, F.J. Origins and Development of the EU ETS. Environ Resource Econ 43, 391–412 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9275-7

(haven’t read it yet)

Ellerman, A. D., & Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results.

Also on this day: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
United States of America

January 1, 1970 – President Nixon says 1970s is the critical environmental decade – “It is literally now or never.”

Fifty five years ago, on this day, January 1st, 1970, President Richard Nixon released a statement about the National Environmental Policy Act.

IT IS particularly fitting that my first official act in this new decade is to approve the National Environmental Policy Act.

The past year has seen the creation of a President’s Cabinet committee on environmental quality,1 and we have devoted many hours to the pressing problems of pollution control, airport location, wilderness preservation, highway construction, and population trends.

1The Environmental Quality Council, established May 29, 1969, by Executive Order 11472 and renamed the Cabinet Committee on the Environment on March 5, 1970, by Executive Order 11514.

By my participation in these efforts I have become further convinced that the 1970’s absolutely must be the years when America pays its debt to the past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters, and our living environment. It is literally now or never.  https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-about-the-national-environmental-policy-act-1969

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the Sixties there had been growing alarm at “localised” forms of pollution (air, water etc).  The climate issue was there in the background, slowly growing, as demonstrated by many posts on this site.  By 1968 the global problems – of population growth, resource use and air pollution – were becoming common knowledge.  There had been repeated efforts to get legislation, at a national level. Finally in 1969 these efforts bore fruit.  Meanwhile, Nixon was trying to use environmental problems to get the Europeans talking about, well, anything except Vietnam.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians will say whatever is convenient, and people who want to believe will believe.

What happened next

1970 also saw the Council on Environmental Quality’s first report (with a climate chapter, written by Gordon MacDonald).  The first big wave of global “eco-concern” basically peaked in 1972 with the Stockholm Conerence on the Human Environment.  The 1970s were not the decade Nixon said they needed to be. Oops.

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: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
Activism Uncategorized United Kingdom

December 31, 2022 – We Quit, says some group everyone has forgotten about.

Two years ago, on this day, December 31st, 2022,

We Quit statement by Extinction Rebellion

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 419ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that XR had been in the usual death spiral of diminishing returns. That happens to all overblown and overambitious social movement organisations who don’t understand that they’re a symptom rather than a cause. And so in order to grab a little bit more attention and try and stitch together a wider coalition or be part of a wider coalition, they made this clickbaity announcement that they were “quitting.” All they were quitting was the disruptive stuff, which was being taken on by Just Stop Oil anyway. 

What we learn is, well, have a look at this article I wrote in the Conversation, then tell me I’m wrong. 

What happened next? They didn’t get 100,000 people on a day or anywhere near it. And the main thing in my inbox from Extinction Rebellion is stuff I already knew and emails pleading for more money.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

December 31, 1997 – Government slags off Australian Conservation Foundation

December 31, 2012 – Murdoch employee throws predictable inaccurate shite at Greens…

December 31, 2022 – FT publishes letter about Thatcher and Just Stop Oil

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

December 30, 1997 –  “How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect?” asks deeply unserious economics hack

Twenty six years ago, on this day, December 30th, 1997

How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect – how fast is the world’s temperature rising, and how important is it that we should take precautionary measures, and of what kind? How much should we spend now, given the uncertainties of the whole issue? And how, or on whom, should we spend? 

1997 MCGuinness on ‘environmentalist propaganda’ McGuinness, P. 1997. Running risks of global warming. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 December, p.6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people have been talking about Australia’s “national interest” and climate change and limits to carbon for a long time because the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol had been going on all year. And here’s Paddy McGuinness, a libertarian economist who had given aid and comfort to the Centre for Independent Studies recycling his bullshit, and refusing to actually think that gosh, he and his beloved ideology might be wrong. 

What we learn is stupid people gonna stupid, especially if their stupidity gets them a seat at the top table, and helps make rich people stay rich/get richer. They need useful idiots in the war of ideas. 

What happened next? Well, McGuinness died, which is why I can speak freely about him. 

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: 

December 30, 1957 – a letter from Gilbert Plass to Guy Callendar

December 30, 1976 – President Jimmy Carter is lobbied about #climate change

December 30, 2006 – “Industry snubs climate strategy”

December 30, 2007 – Bert Bolin dies.

Categories
Russia State Violence

December 29, 1999 – Russian sub commander turned eco-whistleblower is acquitted.

On this day, December 1999,  twenty-five years ago, a Russian submarine commander who blew the whistle on dodgy storage of submarines was acquitted.

29 Dec  1999 – The charges were, however, not dropped. Nikitin first stood trial in October 1998, when the Saint Petersburg City Court rejected the evidence against him. But rather than acquitting him, the Court sent the case back to the FSB for additional investigation. The Supreme Court of Russia confirmed this decision in February 1999, and the FSB filed new charges in July 1999.

The second trial started at the Saint Petersburg City Court in November 1999, and ended on 29 December with a full acquittal 

(though the prosecutors tried to get further bites at the cherry). 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that militaries all around the world are enormous polluters and are able to escape scrutiny by either saying “national security” or impugning the patriotism (sic) of investigators/critics.

What we can learn is that speaking up is risky, and the State (or corporates) like to make examples – the modern day equivalent of sticking heads on pikes…

What happened next. According to Wikipedia

Nikitin is still engaged in environmental and human rights issues in Russia. He is the head of Bellona Foundation’s Saint Petersburg branch, and is engaged in environmental and nuclear safety projects, as well as in human rights cases.

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: 

December 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

Categories
Media Science Scientists United States of America

December 29, 1972 – Schneider meets Sullivan

Fifty two years ago, on this day, December 29th, 1972,

In Baltimore in December 1972 I gave a talk on the issue of human weather control to the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). AAAS meetings are internationally known because they bring together research scientists and policy makers to discuss the societal implications of new knowledge…. After speaking for half an hour or so, on how various kinds of human activities could change the climate, I concluded that, unfortunately, only a relatively few people were aware of the possibilities. I then quipped: “Nowadays, everybody is doing something with the weather, but nobody is talking about it.”

At the front of the audience, a distinguished-looking gentleman was taking notes: he turned out to be the doyen of all science writers, Walter Sullivan of the New York Times….

Sullivan, W. 1972. Goals for US Urged on Weather Control. New York Times, Dec 29, p.50.

(Schneider, 1989: 200)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Stephen Schneider is perhaps being a little naive here, because he’d already made headlines the previous year, thanks to a paper that he had co-written that had talked about the possibility of an ice age thanks to all the dust and smoke that was being put up. That paper turned out to be wrong and was used as a club by denialists to hit Schneider over the head with it for the rest of his life. Because that’s who they are. As for Sullivan, he had been aware of the CO2 possibility at the latest 1961 but much more likely, by 1957; he had after all written a book about the International Geophysical Year. 

What we learn is that by the early 1970s carbon dioxide buildup as a problem was getting more attention. There had been an article earlier the same year in May I want to say 1972 in The New York Times. There was of course by now, the United Nations Environment Program setting up shop. 

What happened next: The carbon dioxide build-up issue kept getting random reports all through the 1970s. Only in 1988 did it finally punch through.

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: 

December 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

December 28, 2002 –  Renewable Energy vs John Howard, round 55ish…

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, December 28th, 2002

RENEWABLE Energy Generators of Australia Limited has dismissed as flawed a recent government report, saying it would lead to the abandonment of renewable energy developments

Hobart Mercury (2002) Report on renewable energy `flawed’. 28th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1997, John Howard had – in the run up to the Kyoto COP – promised a 2% renewable energy target for Australia. He had slowed that process down as much as humanly possible. In the end, a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target had come in, in April of 2001. And started working. And then of course, another Howard acolyte launched a review that threw the whole thing into doubt. And here we have small trade association trying to point this out, getting a hearing and that leads to Hobart Mercury, and maybe elsewhere. Possibly of interest to Hobart, in Tasmania, because that’s just at this point Vestas must have been deep in the planning of starting its factory. 

What we learn is that trade associations for new sectors struggle, because they don’t have many member companies. And those companies tend to be small and poor. And incumbents have better lobbyists, better connections, and it can be a real uphill battle. And often these little trade associations fall apart under lack of money and lack of personnel and all the rest of it. 

What happened next 

Howard successfully made life so hellish for renewables that his preferred options – coal, LNG – dominated throughout his reign. (Vestas pulling the plug in 2005 etc etc)

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: 

December 28, 1978 – fly the plane. Don’t keep tapping the fuel light.

December 28, 1994 – Australian Financial Review says “say yes to Tradeable Emissions Quotas”