The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was a campaign of nonviolent direct action and resistance had culminated in this.
What I think we can learn from this is that campaigns of non-violent direct action but do not always lead to a victory with changes in the law or the ways that the law is is enforced but direct action in and of itself only a tactical set of behaviours but may also have deeper moral or political implications and consequences. But there’s also the question of just getting s*** done
What happened next I don’t know. I should see if the lobster people won – in the long-term or were they shat upon?
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 7, 2005, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Greens call on the gov to rule out nuclear energy and release a report “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the Howard government had asked a pro-nuclear scientist to do a review of nuclear power. This was after Howard and Bush had had one of their periodic meetings. The review made the same point that nuclear power was not going to be economic for Australia, and take too long to develop.
But it was also a useful “dead cat” strategy for Howard because he could wedge greens – he knew that some of them are pronuclear. Further, he knew it will take up time, energy and bandwidth and therefore distract from what he was (not) doing on climate.
But this is tricksy, and eventually the magician plays the same trick so many times that people spot how he does it and stop being impressed or even amused. And so it came to pass…
What I think we can learn from this is that nuclear is always a good “go to” if you want to avoid talking about what needs doing in the here and right now. And allow you to keep doing what you’re doing.
What happened next
Nuclear was not developed. It will not be developed in Australia because the population is not big enough and there aren’t enough big electricity consumers and anyway everyone has got wind and solar and the nuclear boat has sailed (and I don’t think the nuclear submarines will sail either. But who knows.)
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..
Sixteen years ago, on this day, September 6, 2007, some American congressmen hold a hearing about what might be done…
2007 “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing
As Congress turns its eye toward global warming legislation this fall, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will host Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, the CEO of American Electric Power, and other experts for a hearing exploring how to maintain coal as part of the energy mix for America and the world, while avoiding dangerous global warming. Chairman Markey and the rest of the Select Committee will learn about advanced coal technologies like carbon capture and storage, and how a framework for cutting emissions could affect the development and deployment of this technology and the future of coal-fired power plants.
WHAT: “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing
WHERE: 2172 Rayburn House Office Building and on the web at globalwarming.house.gov
WHEN: Sept 6, 2007, 9:30 AM
WHO:
Governor Dave Freudenthal, Wyoming
Michael Morris, Chairman and CEO, American Electric Power
Carl Bauer, Director, Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory
David Hawkins, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center
Robert Sussman, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP
Stuart Dalton, Director for the Generation Sector, Electric Power Research Institute
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 European Union had started an Emissions Trading Scheme. There was a regional scheme in the United States with if I recall rightly seven or eight north-eastern states and the idea and expectation was that whoever became President in 2008 there would be space for a national scheme potentially. And therefore these sorts of “what if, what shape” events were being held in what MSA users would call the policy stream.
What I think we can learn from this is that people anticipate the near future and want to be ready for it so they can get rich. And that’s what so much of carbon pricing has been about – not actually reducing emissions, because if you wanted to reduce emissions you would do different things and you would have to start doing them now rather than letting the so-called market which you’re busy creating decide.
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 seven years ago, on this day, September 5, 1986, a big (it’s relative) rally took place in London, in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, sponsored by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in April 1986 the nuclear dream had suffered yet another setback with the partial meltdown of a dodgy Soviet reactor at Chernobyl. This had been big news globally, but especially in most of the countries downwind which included Sweden Scotland Wales England etc (the French had a different view).
In May 1986, following the Chernobyl disaster, an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 people had marched in Rome to protest against the Italian nuclear program. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace were engaged in trying to move the UK government from its pro-nuclear stance.
What I think we can learn from this
Energy is a political football as we are always rediscovering. It always comes with judgements about how much is enough, what risks are worth running, who should run those risks at cetera. The risk of unmitigated climate change had not yet properly broken through into the public consciousness at this point, but within two years it began to.
What happened next
In 1988 the greenhouse issue came along and it would be impossible to hold that kind of rally without mentioning 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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 4, 2000, industry did another of its ‘the sky will fall’ efforts.
Victorian economic growth could be slashed by more than 2 per cent, thousands could lose their jobs and the aluminum industry could close if a strict anti-greenhouse gas regime is introduced, according to a landmark study.
The study by the Allen Consulting Group has estimated that Victoria’s gross state product would be between 1.3 per cent and 2.6 per cent smaller in 2012 if an emissions trading system or carbon tax scheme were introduced to combat Australia’s growing rate of unwanted greenhouse gas emissions.
Hopkins, P. 2000. Study Warns Of Greenhouse Gas Mayhem. The Age, 4 September, p1.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Victorian government was proposing things that industry did not like. So that was enough for yet another “oh my god the sky will fall if you so much as tax a single molecule of hydrocarbons, we will all starve to death.” These economic models get put in reports and get turned into press releases and speeches which are dutifully reported by stenographers to power.
What I think we can learn from this is that these nonsense economic modeling reports are a favorite weapon in the war against sanity and the public good.
What happened next
I am a bad historian, I haven’t bothered to go and look at what happened next. Did the government find the backbone to stare down this report? Sometimes they can. It depends on all manner of things not just the particular courage of the particular minister.
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 years ago, on this day, September 4, 1990, Industry went all snowflake because a minister was a Mean Girl.
Anon, 1990. Industry upset about Minister’s Attack on Miners, Foresters. Green Week, September 4, p.8.
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 the Hawke government was having to keep promises it had made to environmental groups in order to win the 1990 federal election. One promise was to set up an ecologically sustainable development process. The very existence of this offended industry, which was used to getting its own way via the usual means and did not feel it should ever have to justify its policies and proposals to anyone, least of all a bunch of smelly hippies. Relations with the then environment minister Ros Kelly were complicated, especially after shehad made robust statements about what the miners meant with their definition of sustainability.
What I think we can learn from this is that industry was used to getting its own way and as per that old line “when privilege is removed it feels like oppression” industry always feels oppressed.
What happened next is that the ecologically sustainable development process continued but was then thrown in the circular file when new prime minister Paul Keating shat all over it and the federal bureaucracy buried it as this blog post about the events of August 6, 1992.
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 one years ago, on this day, September 3, 2002, Australian Environment Minister David Kemp was on ABC-TV, explaining the Howard government’s position.
Silly Excuse No. 8. Cuts required by the Kyoto Protocol are too small to make a difference, so why bother?
“Kyoto is going to make barely 1 percent difference to global greenhouse gas emissions.” (Environment Minister Kemp, ‘Lateline’, ABC TV, 3 September 2002) Former Environment Minister David Kemp endorsed the IPCC’s estimate that global emissions will need to be cut by 60% or more to stabilize climate change and says the Government would not ratify the Protocol because it will result only in very small reductions.
[Clive Hamilton, 1 sept 2004]
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 the Howard government had negotiated a spectacularly generous deal for Australia at the 1997 Kyoto conference. It had then ruled out ratifying the key Kyoto protocol in June 2002. (It would also rule out emissions trading at a federal level but state governments especially New South Wales and Victoria controlled by Labor were pushing for an emissions trading scheme).
What I think we can learn from this is that there are no depths of intellectual vacuity and moral skank that old white men will not stoop to if they’re in a corner.
What happened next
Howard continued to resist any action on climate change and then at the end of 2006 tried to do the perception of a u-turn but failed. Throughout all of this emissions have climbed and the consequences have come. more consequences are coming.
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 nine years ago, on this day, September 2, 1994, was the 10th meeting of the outfit that had planned the climate bit of the 1992 Earth Summit and had kept on going afterwards, in the run up to the first “conference of the parties” (to be held in Berlin, in March-April 1995).
Slooooow progress between Rio and Berlin….
Despite the introduction of a formal text into the proceedings which proposed C02 reductions, the session remained deadlocked on the introduction of a protocol such as that proposed by the Germans (Eco, 2 September, 1994: 1). Despite the fact that it was Germany which had proposed it, the EU rapidly said it was not prepared to consider a protocol for COP1, and many developing countries were also opposed, believing it might be a pretext for commitments to be imposed on them, or in some cases even that OECD action itself would hurt their interests. Oil-producing countries often presented their own interests in this way, suggesting OECD action would harm developing countries as a whole e.g. see Al-Sabban, 1991).
Paterson 1996 page 68
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by this time everyone knew that COP1 was coming (to be held in Berlin) and therefore there would be more and more pressure for something serious to be agreed. But here we were still in the shadow-boxing phase, even though it was obvious that the initial stabilisation targets were not going to be met, and that the science was getting stronger. The IPCC people were working towards their second assessment and the denialists were in their pomp, having defeated Clinton’s BTU.
What I think we can learn from this is that we have been grinding away for over 30 years. And given, the absence of strong social movements (among other significant factors) in the countries that matter – for energy justice, climate justice, intergenerational justice – then you’re going to get these sort of technocratic “lost in the detail” shitshows. And so it has come to pass.
What happened next
At cop1 finally there was the Berlin Mandate forcing rich nations to agree that by the end of 1997 they would agree to cuts. That meeting ended up happening in Kyoto, Japan.
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 years ago, on this day, September 1, 1998, carbon trading seemed to be coming to Australia…
SYDNEY (Dow Jones)–Sydney Futures Exchange said Tuesday it has formally established the Australian Emissions Trading Forum to provide opportunities for members to exchange information on greenhouse issues and encourage debate on emissions trading.
An advisory committee to the AETF, comprising representatives from a range of key industry and government agencies, has also been formed, the SFE said in a statement.
“There is growing interest in the prospect of greenhouse gas emissions trading as a means of meeting our greenhouse target, however, many potential stakeholders have found it difficult to obtain information about how the various schemes might develop,” Les Hoskings, SFE’s chief executive said.
At the U.N. climate change convention in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, a number of developed countries made binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has committed to limit emissions to 108% of 1990 levels.
1998 Sydney Futures Exchange Sets Up Forum On Emissions Trading. September 1 Dow Jones International News
See also Fullerton- 31 August 1998 http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s48208.htm
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that various people thought that there would be a rush towards emissions trading, once Australia had its own national scheme and had ratified the Kyoto Protocol (which it had already signed).. The foreign money would come pouring in from nations where cutting carbon was harder (e.g. Japan, which had gone seriously energy efficient after the 1973 oil shock). These nations would instead of making expensive local investments could instead buy some trees in New South Wales and say “job done.” Meanwhile the middlemen and the bankers would get seriously rich. That was the idea, that was the cunning plan.
What I think we can learn from this is that smart people with an eye to the main chance are always coming up with cunning plans. Pity that these didn’t help with the decarbonization effort. Oh well
What happened next
The Sydney Trading Futures thing shut down in 2000 just before the Minchin/Hill Cabinet showdown…
It get off the ground basically emissions trading didn’t either in Australia and the emissions kept climbing and climbing at least globally (t’s all a bit dodgy depending on how you do your accounting)
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 five years ago, on this day, August 31, 1988, the Australian press sees kerching in the climate…
Trees could take on a new value as the world struggles to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a British forestry expert.
International commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, forged at last year’s Kyoto climate summit, would put a high value on preserving large tracts of forest as carbon sinks, a director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, Dr Stephen Bass, told a Melbourne conference last week.
Winkler, T. 1998. Green Dollar Growing On Trees. The Age, 31 August, p.6.
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 the Kyoto Protocol had created putative new asset classes, such as trees as a source of carbon sequestration. In the aftermath of Kyoto – which had happened in December 1997 – lots of conferences about getting rich and saving the planet happened. People listening politely to each other, schmoozing each other, no one sticking up their hand and saying “but this is all a f****** inadequate fantasy isn’t it?” Because if you tell the truth, you don’t get applauded like the boy who said the emperor was naked – you simply tank your career and get uninvited in future.
What I think we can learn from this is that we have pissed 35 years against the wall in all sorts of self-soothing fantasies about market solutions and cleverness. And we never got down to brass tacks of radically reducing energy demand through efficiency, ending the growth economy delusion and being responsible sentient beings on the planet. The consequences of those decisions and actions and inactions are now becoming clear, even to rich white people.
What happened next
It was 2011 before Australia finally had a national emissions trading scheme. It didn’t ratify Kyoto until 2007, by which time it was a purely symbolic action. And the whole thing with carbon sinks is just a sick joke in the context that you may have noticed but there have been some bushfires and enormous quantities of carbon have been thrown up into the atmosphere, including the carbonized corpses of I don’t know a billion animals. What a species 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.
