Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 30, 1989 – A global tax on emissions?!

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 30 1989 the Australian newspaper the Canberra Times reported on the crazy ideas that … might have made a difference.  What a stupid stupid species we turned out to be.

“A third set of more imaginative options are ruled out as too costly. These include a global tax on carbon emissions, major investment in renewable energy, and the banning of coal.”

Guest, I. 1989. World Bank tackles global warming. Canberra Times, 30 August, p. 9.

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 debates about the responses to climate change – what we used to call the greenhouse effect – were well underway, because various nations were adopting or thinking about adopting emissions reductions targets such as the Toronto Target. What’s entertaining in this is the question “compared to what?” So, if there had been a global carbon emissions tax and the money raised had gone into investing in renewable energy and compensating the workers affected by the demise of coal, then we might have gotten somewhere… But it would all have been too costly to save the world.

What I think we can learn from this is that the ideas we needed were there but turning ideas into a political program requires more skill and resources than we had. This is largely (but not totally) because of the veto power of business and the obduracy of large technical systems and so on.

What happened next

We never got a carbon tax. We got attempts at emissions trading schemes. The so-called major investments in renewables came very late, too late. And although we may exit coal, we will do it far too late.

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

August 30, 1975 – The Science Show does climate change…

Forty eight years ago, on this day, August 30, 1975, the very first edition of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s new science program carries a segment about climate change.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-science-show-celebrates-35-years/3023384#transcript

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 the Scottish public intellectual Ritchie-Calder had been aware of the potential problem of climate change since 1954 at the latest (probably earlier).  He had been speaking of it as a serious problem by 1963 at the latest. His January 1970 article about “Mortgaging the Old Homestead,” which had been serialised in the Bulletin and elsewhere, included a relatively lengthy mention of the carbon dioxide problem.

At the time this show was broadcast the Australian Academy of Science was conducting an investigation into “the carbon dioxide problem”. It was Nugget Coombs who’d set that ball rolling, using Kissinger’s speech to the General Assembly as a pretext. 

What I think we can learn from this is that intelligent Australians who listened to the Science Show knew from 1975 what was going on.

What happened next was that the Science Show kept covering the climate issue and we’ve already talked about it on this website – the  Nirenberg and O’Brien episode and others… well done Robyn Williams!

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 Business Responses

August 29, 2008 – business tells Labor to go softly (Labor then does, obvs).

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 29, 2008, business supplied the Labor government with the white flag they expected the government to wave.

“Today in the national capital, close to 60 business representatives will meet Resources Minister Martin Ferguson to outline their concerns over the draft ETS outlined by Ms Wong”

Lewis, S. 2008.

“Mr Rudd can’t afford to get this one wrong. The national economy is in a precarious state. Smoke signals send carbon trade talks around in circles. The Advertiser, 29 August, p.19.  

See Lewis follow up story the following day!

Lewis, S. 2008. Government wilts as business turns up heat on emissions: Backdown on climate plan. Herald-Sun, 30 August, p.97.

The Rudd Government has given the first sign it will change its controversial emissions trading scheme amid warnings that billions of dollars in investment will be lost offshore.

In the most significant challenge to Labor since the November election, 60 business chiefs yesterday told the Government that big ticket projects would be canned.

And Kevin Rudd was warned his Government risks a repeat of the “GST food fight” as industry and policy makers battle over the shape of a carbon trading scheme.

Executives from a raft of firms — including BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside, Chevron, OneSteel and Alcoa — warned they might be forced to halt investment during a meeting with Resources and Energy Minister, Martin Ferguson.

Other representatives from the cement, paper and pulp, coal and resources sectors also raised concerns during the Canberra summit, which is likely to lead to key changes in the design of the ETS.

In the first potential breakthrough, the head of the Climate Change Department, Martin Parkinson, signalled the Government was prepared to modify its scheme — to prevent a backlash. Mr Parkinson told the meeting in Canberra that the Government was willing to look at changing the formula for how “free” permits were issued.

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 Kevin Rudd had surfed to power on climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation,” and had started a convoluted policy process which was open to all sorts of special pleading and lobbying, especially in the context of global financial crisis. And this above is an example of business – which was already very practised at presenting a united front even if there wasn’t one – in well lobbying ministers, which in a pluralist system is totally ok, and is absolutely not a display of naked business power at all, you crazed conspiracy theorist you.

What I think we can learn from this is that any policy you try to implement is going to get watered down rather than watered up. This is the sort of thing that Ross Garnaut was talking about when he said that never has so much been given by so many to so few in his December 2008 article “oiling the squeaks.”

What happened next

Rudd’s December 2008 white paper was even more of a giveaway to business. Then in 2009 the process got even more corrupted and watered down. Rudd clearly had a mouth for it but didn’t have the spine to stand up to the vested interests who run the country. By the time he discovered that spine in April May June 2010 it was too late.

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 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 28, 2003, the Environmental Persecution Agency says “protecting the environment is not our remit. Now go away” (I paraphrase, but only lightly).

2003 August 28, 2003: EPA Rules that Carbon Dioxide is Not a Pollutant

The Environmental Protection Agency rules that carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming, cannot be regulated as a pollutant. EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant writes in his 12-page decision, “Because the [Clean Air Act] does not authorize regulation to address climate change, it follows that [carbon dioxide] and other [greenhouse gases], as such, are not air pollutants.” His ruling reverses the position taken by the Clinton administration in 1998. Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, is pleased with the decision. “Why would you regulate a pollutant that is an inert gas that is vital to plant photosynthesis and that people exhale when they breathe? That’s not a pollutant,” he says. Melissa Carey, a climate policy specialist for Environmental Defense, disagrees. “Refusing to call greenhouse-gas emissions a pollutant is like refusing to say that smoking causes lung cancer. The Earth is round. Elvis is dead. Climate change is happening.” [Knight Ridder, 8/29/2003]

https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/694c8f3b7c16ff6085256d900065fdad.html

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 in September 2000, on the campaign trail George Bush had said that carbon dioxide emissions would be regulated. He then pulled the US out of Kyoto Protocol negotiations, and started talking about technology and technological fixes such as carbon capture and storage.

The EPA which had been created under President Nixon was supposed to have responsibility for pollutants so arguing carbon dioxide was not a pollutant was a good way of denying any responsibility which is what you would expect from a Bush Appointee.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Republican war against science and against the environment has changed shape in the 80s. Then it was naked and gleeful, but they learnt that that was costly and provoked their enemies. So instead they turned to this sort of stunt of tying their own hands so that they did not have a legal obligation to take action.

What happened next

Various state governments sued. The EPA it went to the Supreme Court. And in 2007 Supreme Court decided that carbon dioxide was indeed a pollutant…

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
International processes UNFCCC United Nations

August 27, 1993 – international negotiations edge forward

Thirty years ago, on this day, August 27, 1993, the post-Rio Earth Summit process was edging forward.

1993 End of INC negotiations at which – first tentative but informal discussions of the adequacy of the commitments contained in articles 4.2(a) and (b) of the convention (Paterson 1996, page 67)

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 in May 1992, following a prolonged fight, the Americans won an infamous victory by removing target and timetables from the text of the climate treaty. This victory was short-lived however because it was obvious that emissions reductions were going to be needed. And the international negotiating committee saw this by August of 1993 at which point various nations had already ratified the UNFCCC and it was well on the way to meeting the threshold for ratification, and therefore the first “Conference of the Parties” –  an international meeting which in the end took place in Berlin in March-April 1995.

What I think we can learn from this is that blocking victories doesn’t necessarily last terribly long – you can take something off the agenda but it will crawl and slither its way back onto the agenda whether it’s good or bad. And therefore the work of containing and corralling and controlling is never-ending. The kind of people who wrote The Powell memorandum, they understand that. And they have to the deep pockets to fund a culture war. Progressive groups, because they tell themselves the myth of the neutral State and of the information deficit, are constantly surprised that they have to keep fighting. Also, they’re also, almost by definition, worse off for funding.

What happened next

At the Berlin meeting in 1995 the Berlin Mandate was agreed, meaning that rich countries were going to have to cut their emissions. Or rather, they were going to have to turn up to the third COP with a number in their heads for emissions reductions.  They did this. It was inadequate, and then the USA and Australia walked away.

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

August 27, 2013 – absurd claim of Nobel-prize winners’ support for Liberal non-policy is debunked.

Ten years ago, on this day, August 27, 2013, soon-to-be environment minister Greg Hunt was caught frolicking in fantasy land about the absurd “Direct Action” policy.

27 August 2013: Greg Hunt’s claims that Nobel laureates support direct action debunked by The Wire as they had not heard of ‘direct action’ or Greg Hunt and issue further followed up by Climate Spectator. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/news-story/b8184490c3ccc2a49c17cd9c23048357

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 Liberal Party in Australia had spent the previous 3 years boosting an anti-market pro-government intervention policy which was laughingly called “Direct Action.” Direct action had been analysed and shown to be bullshit. Business was pleading with Liberal leader Tony Abbott not to do it, but he couldn’t u-turn and we now ahead of the 2013 election had a situation where the Liberal environment spokesperson Greg Hunt was just making stuff up, knowing that there would not be consequences.

What I think we can learn from this is that, in the words of journalist Nick Tomalin, “they lie they lie they lie.” And they are allowed to lie by a supine amnesiac Media and here we are.

What happened next

The Abbott government brought in so-called Direct Action and it did not reduce emissions. Of course it did not – it was never designed to do that

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
biodiversity

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 26, 2003, another “announceable” plan was launched. People who want to believe it can. Those who don’t can be dismissed as malcontents and trouble-makers…

Kemp Acts to Protect Australia’s Biodiversity from Climate Change – 26 August 2003

Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, today announced a new nationwide strategic approach to protect Australia’s biodiversity from the impacts of climate change.

“The Australian Government, together with the States and Territories, is developing a National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan,” Dr Kemp said.

“Together we have appointed an all-governments task force to work on the Plan as a matter of urgency. Their first step is an Australia-wide consultation process which will kick off in early September, with the draft Plan to be submitted to the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council in April next year.

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 Howard government by this stage had ruled out an emissions trading scheme (twice), it had also ruled out Kyoto ratification. So its one green pretend thing was a biodiversity strategy – nevermind that 20 years previously a National Conservation Strategy for Australia had been created. At least this would create working groups and workshops and task forces and interim reports and draft reports and press releases which would keep everyone occupied while the planet was being turned into a denuded barren wasteland of s***.

What I think we can learn from this

That when they are needing to gild the turd governments will announce the creation of new strategies/task forces/workshops etc and this will seduce enough willingly-ignorant or just plain thick and naive people as a substitute for doing anything. Works every time.

What happened next

I don’t know. Did such a strategy get created? I haven’t bothered to look. Doesn’t matter, because the natural world is getting turned to a crisp by us. What a species we are.

UPDATE – A strategy did get created. You can read it here. Thanks to Georgina on Twitter for the 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.

References

Categories
United Kingdom

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

On this day, fifty years ago, Sir Kingsley Dunham gave a presidential address, with the title “The Advancement of Environmental Science”  to the Canterbury Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.  In it, he noted the following

“Unfortunately, a development of energy sources sufficient to make possible universal living standards equivalent to the highest achieved at present would, according to some calculations, raise the whole temperature of the atmosphere and seas to an extent dangerous to life. Here the meteorologists and oceanographers must assess this risk as they reach greater understanding of all the circulatory processes involved. The great tropical experiment of the Global Atmospheric Research Programme of the World Meteorological Organisation and the International Council of Scientific Unions shortly to begin, is an important step towards fuller understanding of processes in a zone so far too little known. Regarding the possibility of a general global rise of temperature, the effect of accumulation of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere producing a greenhouse effect (Wilson & Matthews 1970), has been widely discussed, especially in the light of Swedish observations indicating a possible increase of 18 per cent of this gas in the atmosphere by the year 2000 because of the combustion of fossil fuels. A question, which insufficient data at present makes it impossible to answer, is whether a rise in temperature dangerous to life will have occurred before combustion of carbonaceous fuels comes to its end.”

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 Limits to Growth and the Stockholm Environment Conference were just over a year old. But the issues they raised were not going away, and people still wanted to talk about this stuff.

What we can learn – the threat of carbon dioxide wasn’t abstruse.  People knew.

What happened next – the first oil shock meant that politicians and planners had less time/bandwidth for environmental issues (and were using the wrong tools 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
Australia

August 25, 2013 – The IPA loses support, for being stupid climate deniers.

Ten years ago, on this day, August 25, 2013, the vicious stupid thugs at the Institute for Public Affairs lose some corporate funding (but of course can then turn that around to proclaim their fearless independence).

Some of the world’s largest companies have dropped financial support and membership for the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs amid concern at its vociferous campaign against action on climate change.

Petroleum giants ExxonMobil and Shell and large miners are among the multinationals that have confirmed leaving the Liberal-linked IPA, led by party member John Roskam, who this year was compared to Jesus Christ with his disciples by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Schneiders, B. and Millar, R. 2013. Climate hard line costs IPA support. Sydney Morning Herald, 25 August.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/climate-hard-line-costs-ipa-support-20130824-2sirk.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm423 , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that IPA had been a proud culture warrior in defeating Gillard’s carbon price and generally being asses. But this kind of “swinging for the fences” mentality comes with risks and costs, as we have seen already with the Global Climate Coalition and the Heartland Institute.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are are limits on what funders are willing to risk, and if you go too hard too far too fast some of your more mainstream groups which are also at the same time trying to spin a CSR (corporate social responsibility) line will clutch their pearls for fear of being exposed as hypocrites and being subject to consumer boycotts and so forth.

What’s interesting is sometimes the culture warriors just forget that there are limits and you saw this happened with Monkton with the swastika comment. They get trigger happy/high on their own supply and the Red Mist descends and they lose touch with what is going to fly and what isn’t.

What happened next

The IPA to my knowledge has continued to be asshat on climate change but I have not bothered to see whether they have dialled it down a notch, maybe someone can tell us.

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

August 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 24, 1989, Sydney councillors start to take note of citizen ideas for tackling “the greenhouse effect”. And use it to put the spotlight on the feds.

A concerned citizen’s letter has prompted Leichhardt Council to send three submissions to a Senate committee inquiring into ways of reducing the impact of the greenhouse effect.

The submissions, from Alderman Issy Wyner, as chairman of the council’s environment pollution control panel, Dr Ken Sullivan, president of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand, and Mr John Mara, council’s deputy chief health and building surveyor, were posted on Friday.

Mr N. G. Hyde, of Kingsgrove, had written to Leichhardt Council, expressing his concern about the greenhouse effect and depletion of the ozone layer.

“He probably wrote to every council but it stimulated a response from us,”Mr Mara said.

“We kept the matter on the agenda by writing to the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Richardson, and his NSW counterpart, Mr Moore, for advice, and picking up information from newspapers and journals.”

Bilic, J. 1989. Council officers greenhouse tips. Sydney Morning Herald, 24 August. 

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 everyone was running around with urgency and ideas for dealing with what was then called the greenhouse effect. People who understood it knew that early action was not only preferable but necessary because once it has got out of hand it wouldn’t just be “too expensive to do anything about” but “impossible ti do anything about.”

This was at a federal state and local level in Australia. (Of course we had had the Brundtland Report by now, which emphasised the importance of local action).

What I think we can learn from this is that all the rhetoric about responsive government, citizen engagement citizen participation have been with us for generations. And on whole, in most places, it has not taken. And even in the places where it has taken it needs persistent consistent effort because the culture of atomization of neoliberalization of techno-salvationism is very very strong.

What happened next – they gave us the language of Local Agenda 21, but local councils went back to doing what they do best – being secretive, flogging off state assets including publicly-owned land to developers in exchange for brown envelopes and acting as a career launch pad and finishing academy for ambitious young politicians wanting to be an MP, and general “snout in the trough” opportunities for 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.