Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 4, 1998, NSW premier Bob Carr puts pen to paper. As per Hansard –

“It is amazing how up to the mark the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is. This very day, Thursday, 4 June, the New South Wales Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr, signed the first carbon credit trade in Australia as part of an innovative program tackling greenhouse gas emissions and creating new jobs in New South Wales. Today the international finance company Bankers Trust and resource consultants Margules Groome Poyry certified the trade. This is the first time in Australia that major players in the finance and resource sectors have backed a carbon sink plantation in Australia.”

http://23.101.218.132/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC19980604025

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bob Carr as New South Wales Prime Minister premier was wanting to put New South Wales on the map for carbon trading. Global carbon trading looked like it was going to be a “thing”, and NSW has a lot of trees… Carr had been aware of the problem of climate change since 1971, because he saw Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich on an Australian TV show. 

What I think we can learn from this

Within the system, we have smart people who are willing to see the system as basically reformable and tweakable. Will with luck and skill gain promotion. And they will try to implement various (neoliberal market based) wheezes. Sometimes they succeed in bringing the schemes to fruition, but the schemes never will (or “have not yet” if you are a true believer) delivered on their promise.

What happened next

The whole question of a carbon trading scheme fell over. But Carr persisted. And it was his attempt to stitch together all of the states having emissions trading schemes that would then combine that forced John Howard’s hand in 2005/6. Carr stepped down as New South Wales premier in 2005, and was briefly a senator in the federal parliament, and Julia Gillard’s Foreign Minister

And the emissions? Well, they have kept increasing and the atmospheric concentrations have kept increasing. Obviously.

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
Uncategorized

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Thirteen years ago, on this day, June 3, 2010, one of the best books about climate denial and its historical roots was published: Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been earlier books (including two by Ross Gelbspan which I would recommend) about climate denial. Oreskes and Conway had been working hard to show the history of organised denial of basic science by industry and how the climate people had learned from ozone and tobacco, same playbook, and how certain personnel were the same. It was published maybe a year too late to have the impact that it could have, if it had come out. Before Copenhagen, it might have exposed and neutered the sort of climategate bullshit, but here we are. The book is really, really good. And I would strongly recommend that you read it. 

What I think we can learn from this

Good books can change folks’ perspective (duh).

What happened next

They made a movie. Everybody knows, who wants to know, that there have been systematic programmes of lying to us. But because those liars are well-protected, and don’t suffer consequences, and because it’s exhausting to be lied to, the lies wash you down. And the promises rust.

And because of the mass media being what it is, as opposed to what media could be, we are where we are, where 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.

Categories
Ignored Warnings

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 3, 1994, news reached the colonies of an event that had actually happened on Wednesday June 1… – Greenpeace International’s release of ‘The Climate Timebomb’.

Anon, 1994. World is facing a climate time bomb: Greenpeace. Canberra Times, 3 June, page 7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Greenpeace trying to get people to understand that the increasing number of weather disasters and extremes are in fact a climate time bomb. The United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change had been ratified. And by enough countries the UNFCCC itself the text was no great shakes and Greenpeace was well aware that more needed to be done. And were trying to get insurers and reinsurers interested. 

What I think we can learn from this is that using “natural disasters” to convince people that climate is a pressing issue hasn’t really worked. Because people have short memories, because of shifting baselines, because people don’t want to stare into the abyss. And because until recently attributing any specific disaster or event to climate was problematic at best. 

What happened next

Greenpeace kept trying to do what it could on climate. And you can have criticisms – I do – but they’ve been on the side of the angels as opposed to the fossil fuel shills.

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

 June 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, June 2, 1986, US Senators got going…

The year of 1986 was significant in terms of congressional interest. Influential congressional leaders asserted that the issue of greenhouse warming was no longer only a science issue; policy options had to be considered. 19 in Congress, the likes of Senators Chafee, Stafford, Bentsen, Durenberger, Mitchell, Baucus, Leahy and Gore, began to pressure the White House to take action on climate change. 

These Senators signed a letter to Dr. Frank Press, President of NAS on June 2, 1986, requesting the NAS to review the scientific issues. These senators were ‘deeply disturbed’ by the implications of published reports on CO2 induced climate change.

(Hecht and Tirpak 1995)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various US Senators had been getting well informed about the risks of climate change by various National Academy of Science reports. And scientists such as Jim Hansen, and David Burns, and so on. In October 1985, there had been a meeting at Villach in Austria, which had really concentrated everyone’s minds. Carl Sagan had given testimony to Seators in December of 1985. LINK

Joe Biden introduced a climate bill, in 1987, and this letter by various senators, is part of the run-up to that. And we should remember that Frank Press was previously Jimmy Carter’s Chief Scientific Adviser. And he would have been very well aware of the carbon dioxide issue, having been lobbied on it and having taken action on it before (and in April 1980 having pushed back against a report advocating a policy response). 

What I think we can learn from this is that before the breakout in 1988, there were lots of people in the policy stream and politics stream and the problem stream to make stuff happen, and to couple the streams. There are always efforts to couple streams before they are successfully coupled.

What happened next

Biden introduced legislation. The following year (1987) it was reintroduced and became the Global Climate Protection Act, reluctantly signed by Reagan on January 1 1988.

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
Japan

June 1, 2011 – Japanese office workers into short sleeves to save the planet

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 1, 2011, the Japanese Government

 “marked the start of the Ministry of the Environment’s Super Cool Biz campaign, with “full-page newspaper ads and photos of ministry workers smiling rather self-consciously at their desks wearing polo shirts and colorful Okinawa kariyushi shirts.” “ [Wikipedia]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Japan, after the 1973 oil shock, had already eaten lots of the low hanging fruit with regards to energy efficiency. Therefore, further reducing carbon emissions was simply not that easy to do. So these sorts of behavioral efforts – I don’t want to call them gimmicks – became more attractive to policymakers. And my (pitifully inadequate) understanding of Japanese culture is that it’s quite interested in public displays of conformity and dressing the part. So wearing short sleeves had been a social faux pas. And, therefore, government campaigns to make it less of a faux pas were kind of necessary. 

What I think we can learn from this is that cultures change slowly, usually. And we needed a lot more cultural change to reduce our emissions. We didn’t do that. We are not doing that. We won’t do it. And therefore our culture will change. But not in ways that we are particularly going to like, but those are the consequences of our actions.

What happened next

The Japanese are still wearing short sleeves in the office, I think. See this from 2020..

What is Cool Biz in 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.

Categories
Australia

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Eleven years ago, on this day, May 31, 2012, Australian climate minister Greg Combet mocks Opposition Leader Tony Abbott over the latter’s idiotic claims of the costs of a carbon “tax”.

“At which point Combet burst into song: ‘Cabramatta Parramatta, Wangaratta, Coolangatta-” but the punchline is: “Everywhere is doomed, man”.’  Paul Keating and Peter Costello would have been proud.”

Oakes, L. 2012. Abbott is the high priest of pessimism. The Australian, 2 June. 

And some audio here – 

https://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3515530.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that all through the climate wars of 2010-11 Tony Abbott had made outlandish and unsupported claims about the economic costs to citizens and businesses of the Gillard Emissions Trading Scheme. Abbot claimed that various regional centres would be “wiped off the map,” that would be $150 pot roast, at cetera, et cetera. 

These sorts of the sky-will-fall pronouncements, while ludicrous, will lend credibility simply by the fact that he was – God help us – Leader of the Opposition. And they were, of course, amplified by the deeply irresponsible, and in fact, malicious Murdoch media, who will now clutch their pearls,saying “nothing to do with us gov”. So Combet wanted to have a little fun. 

What I think we can learn from this

What we learn is that lies and bullshit in the service of capital are always okay. God help you if you make one error of fact, or exaggeration, when trying to reduce the damage of industrial civilization, if and when that impinges on rich people’s ability to make more profit. 

What happened next

Nowhere was wiped off the map. But the ALP did get wiped out, and Abbot became Prime Minister. That went well…

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 IPCC

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, May 30, 1996, Fred Seitz, energetic and lunatic denialist, tries to smear the IPCC, focussing on one particular scientist, Ben Santer

“This controversial issue also resulted in two letters (dated 30 May and 26 June), being sent to me, one from the Global Climate Coalition (John Schlaes) and the other from The Climate Council (Donald Pearlman). Copies of these were also sent to ten key members of the US Congress as well as the Advisor for Science and Technology and Assistant to the US President (John Gibson), and the Assistant Secretary of State (Eileen Clausen).”

Bolin 2007, page 130

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global Climate Coalition was in full beast mode, trying to attack specifically Ben Santer. And as one of the authors of the lead authors of a particular chapter of the IPCC’s second assessment report (which said that there was evidence of a discernible impact of man’s activities on the climate). Almost 30 years later, it’s not really regarded as controversial. But this was the first statement of the IPCC to that effect. And the Global Climate Coalition was wanting to try to stop it or failing that, send a warning to other scientists. Let’s try and chill the debate or slow it down.

What I think we can learn from this

This is an age-honoured tactic, that you shoot messengers and hang the body on a gibbet with a sign that says “This is what happens if you open your big fucking mouth”. It was ever thus. And having it come from multiple sources, and be distributed to lots of people is also standard – makes a lot of noise, kicks up a lot of dust and dirt…

What happened next was that someone at the Wall Street Journal probably got a copy of that letter because a few days later, there was an editorial smearing Santer.

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.

See also –

Excerpt from Oreskes and Conway’s Merchants of Doubt https://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/the-relentless-attack-of-climate-scientist-ben-santer/

Fred Pearce interview with Ben Santer, 2010…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness

Categories
Sweden United Nations

May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

Fifty five years ago, on this day, May 29, 1968, the United Nations said “let’s talk” about a Swedish proposal to have a conference.

On 29 May 1968, the Economic and Social Council decided to place the question of convening an international conference on the problems of the human environment on the agenda for its mid-1968 session. It did so on the proposal of Sweden

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in December of 1967 the Swedes had put forward this as an idea. 

What I think we can learn from this

The wheels grind slowly. And you need to have some people who really know how to navigate the system, which the Swedes had.

This “matters” because climate change gets on the agenda here. Atmospheric global global atmospheric pollution levels are starting to be talked of as something that is going to require international cooperation. By now. Westphalian state is going to be a West failure. If you’ll pardon my terrible pun. 

What happened next

Sure enough, in June of 1972, the Stockholm conference happened. And it was not as much a success as it needed to be. But at least we got the United Nations Environment Programme for what that’s worth. 

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
Sweden United Nations

 May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

Fifty five years ago, on this day, May 29, 1968, the United Nations said “let’s talk” about a Swedish proposal to have a conference.

On 29 May 1968, the Economic and Social Council decided to place the question of convening an international conference on the problems of the human environment on the agenda for its mid-1968 session. It did so on the proposal of Sweden

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in December of 1967 the Swedes had put forward this as an idea. 

What I think we can learn from this

The wheels grind slowly. And you need to have some people who really know how to navigate the system, which the Swedes had.

This “matters” because climate change gets on the agenda here. Atmospheric global global atmospheric pollution levels are starting to be talked of as something that is going to require international cooperation. By now. Westphalian state is going to be a West failure. If you’ll pardon my terrible pun. 

What happened next

Sure enough, in June of 1972, the Stockholm conference happened. And it was not as much a success as it needed to be. But at least we got the United Nations Environment Programme for what that’s worth. 

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 United States of America

“Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley, May 28, 1969

On May 28, 1969, there was a ‘teach-in’ in Berkeley, California.

BERKELEY—About 2,000 persons attended—off and on—a six hour teach-in on “Ecology and Politics in America” May 28 at the U-C Berkeley campus. The idea was to relate the People’s Park issue to broader questions of planetary survival. A lot of language under a hot sun—but hopefully the thing will get made into a book to help people past the old politics and into a root politics of ecology. Sponsors were American  Federation of Teachers locals 1474 and 1795.  Their leaflet for the occasion put it succinctly where it’s at:

“The battle for a people’s park in Berkeley has raised questions that go far beyond the immediate objects of public attention. They are questions about the quality of our lives, about the deterioration of our environment and about the propriety and legitimacy of the uses to which we put our land. The questions raised by this issue reach into two worlds at once: the world of power, politics and the institutional shape of American society on the one hand, and the world of ecology, conservation and the biological shape of our environment on the other.

“The People’s Park is a mirror in which our society may see itself. A country which destroys Vietnam in order to liberate it sees no paradox in building fences around parks so that people may enjoy them. It is not at all ironic that officers of the law uproot shrubbery in order to preserve the peace. It is the way of the world! Trees are anarchic; concrete is Civilization.

“Our cities are increasingly unlivable. The ghettos are anathema to any form of human existence. Our back country is no retreat; today’s forest is tomorrow’s Disneyland. Our rivers are industrial sewers; our lakes are all future resorts; our wildlife are commercial resources.

“The history of America is a history of hostility and conquest. We have constituted ourselves socially and politically to conquer and transform nature. We measure ‘progress’ in casualties, human and environmental, in bodies of men or board-feet of lumber.

“Ecology and politics are no longer separate or separable issues…”

Keith Lampe Earth Read-Out  https://fifthestate.anarchistlibraries.net/library/81-june-12-25-1969-earth-read-out

The context was that people were realising that what was being done to the people of Vietnam – wanton murder and mayhem using ‘advanced technology’ was, (checks notes) also being done at a planetary level, with fewer explosions.  And people were (rightly, it turns out) worried about the long-term viability of such a strategy. 

What happened next

The momentum stalled as the war wound down, the first oil shock sealed the deal and although the struggle continued, we were doomed…