Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Denial United States of America

August 13, 2007 –  Newsweek nails denialists

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 13, 2007, the US publication Newsweek, which had been reporting on carbon dioxide build-up since 1953, had a very good report on the tactics of the denialists, under the clever title “The Truth about Denial.”

“Organisations and companies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil emphasise conservative climate change scenarios and highlight the potential economic costs of stricter controls” (Sharon Begley, “The Truth about Denial”, Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Vale Sharon Begley – https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/17/sharon-begley-path-breaking-science-journalist-dies/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was absolutely back on the agenda with Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” and the fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. There was renewed vigour in the international process with lots of talk about what would replace the Kyoto Protocol. And therefore, the denialists were up to their old tricks. Sharon Begley’s article is a good summation of how and why they do what they do. 

What I think we can learn from this

Mainstream press articles can often give you the facts you need. You may need to bolt on a decent theoretical framework, but serious mainstream media (often the business press is best) can give you a bunch of worthwhile facts to be going on with.

Btw, from reading this article, it is a tolerably accurate picture of incumbents’ behaviour. In any democratic society (a) these tactics would be taughtf in school so people could defend their minds against the onslaught  and (b) of course, you would not need to be taught it because there would laws and structures that prevented the ownership of the government by concentrated economic interests. 

What happened next

The denial kept going, becoming a hydra and a T1000 at the same time.

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 Australia

 August 12, 2010 – BZE launches energy plan for Australia

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 12, 2010, the activist group “Beyond Zero Emissions” holds a Sydney launch of its “Stationary Energy Plan”, with recently toppled Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull on the stage…

Turnbull’s talk

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/bze-plan-100-renewables-2020-clean-public-meeting-discussion

http://bze.org.au/media/newswire/zero-carbon-australia-sydney-launch-event-video-bob-carr-and-malcolm-turnbull-100912 (dead link)

Critique – https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Rudd government’s entirely unambitious climate policies the CPRS had taken up all the oxygen in 2009. The CPRS had then fallen on its face, and Rudd had been unable to summon the courage to call an election on the issue, or take up the suggestion of the Greens for a carbon tax. The activist group Beyond Zero Emissions decided to try to change the narrative with a plan for well beyond zero emissions. 

What I think we can learn from this

This sort of bold policymaking from outside the mainstream is really good at forcing the government of the day and the opposition to slightly raise their ambition – or at least ramp up their rhetoric, albeit usually within pre existing and very technocratic boundaries The kind of breakthrough transformational stuff that is proposed, rarely, if ever, gets adopted wholesale, especially if the agenda is mature (i.e. there are lots of middle-class and rich people in and funding think tanks designed to maintain their positions).

What happened next

BZE staggered on, there were personality conflicts. And then after a while it stops being quite so fresh. It became obvious to everyone that the moment has passed, and it was someone else’s 15 minutes next time…

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 Australia

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 11, 2005, Australian activists took action.

On 11 August 2005 approximately 50 student environmentalists and Greenpeace volunteers unfurled a “Quit Coal” banner outside the plant while 12 activists occupied the brown coal pit, with two locking themselves to coal dredging equipment. This action drew worldwide attention to Hazelwood’s CO2 emissions and their harmful impacts on the global climate. (Wikipedia on Hazelwood)

See also https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-08-11/police-remove-greenpeace-mine-activists/2078834

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 Victorian Government was continuing to talk about expanding and continuing with Hazelwood, which was burning brown coal. This, while abundant, was truly filthy. So Greenpeace were doing their best to keep the issue on the agenda, and to accelerate the demise of Hazelwood. 

What I think we can learn from this

Transitions take a long time. Involve a lot of blood sweat and tears.

What happened next

It took a long while. But finally, they won. Hazelwood is Toast and Victoria is going for wind and renewables.

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 Kingdom

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 10, 2003, the UK recorded its highest temperature.

2003 – The highest temperature ever recorded in the United Kingdom – 38.5 °C (101.3 °F) in Kent, England. It is the first time the United Kingdom has recorded a temperature over 100 °F (38 °C). We had been warned, 

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 UK heatwave and the European heatwave has proved then record 1000s of people are dying in Paris and hundreds more than you’d expect for that that time of year die in the UK. These are the sorts of events that are totally in line with what the climate models suggest. And yet, after some hand-wringing, we go back to sleep.

What I think we can learn from this is that extreme weather events don’t cause people to suddenly “wake up,” that people like the proverbial underlined frog, will sit in the saucepan, especially if we’re tied down.

What happened next

In 2022 another temperature record tumbled, with temperatures of over 40 degrees recorded. But it’s all just natural variations. Of course, it is, 

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
Europe

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Ten years ago, on this day, August 9, 2013, BP explains to the EU Commission how it is going to be…

The EU abandoned or weakened key proposals for new environmental protections after receiving a letter from a top BP executive which warned of an exodus of the oil industry from Europe if the proposals went ahead.

“The missive to the EU’s energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, was dated 9 August 2013, partly hand-written, and signed by a senior BP representative whose name has been redacted.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/20/eu-dropped-climate-policies-after-bp-threat-oil-industry-exodus

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

BP executives were literally writing EU energy policy. The context was that by this time the EU’s CCS ambitions were in tatters but it still needed to talk a good game. The oil companies were not interested in anything ambitious, why would they be? And so you see this kind of naked power play.

What I think we can learn from this sometimes the mask slips/is wrenched off –  it’s on occasions like this. 

What happened next

Oh, you know, the 2015 Paris COP – everyone held hands, sang Kumbaya, announced Net Zero, 1.5 degrees all the rest of it. 

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 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

Twenty three years ago, on this day, August 8, 1990, Aussie and New Zealand politicians called for ambitious emissions reductions.

“One was launched by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council on August 8, and supports the Toronto target as an interim goal for planning purposes. This has been accepted by the Governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT.” (Begbe, 1990, 10 Sept)  

Btw, on the same day, in the same country, the ABC’s Lateline had an episode devoted to:  

“The problem of greenhouse gas emissions and Australia’s record on research funding for alternative energy sources.”

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 federal government was under pressure to announce an emissions reduction target, to both keep the environmentalists happy, and for Australia to have a position at the impending Second World Climate Conference to be held in November in Geneva. And therefore, state environment ministers and New Zealand ministers saying that there should be a “Toronto target” was a good idea.

What I think we can learn from this is that any government is going to be pressured by other governments. And it’s counter pressure from the likes of Brian O’Brien and denialists.

What happened next

On October 11th 1990 the Federal Government agreed to a very hedged climate action target –  with the caveat that it mustn’t hurt the economy.  It then got ignored, having served its purpose of shutting up the greenies. The easter egg was that the Industry Commission got to produce a report that would be used as a bludgeon to say “too costly”…

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 Denial

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 7, 2003, Australian Prime Minister John Howard was up to his old climate-trashing tricks.

Howard meets with Sam Walsh and Brian Harwood and others in Sydney to scupper an emissions trading scheme that Costello etc were putting forward.. How do we know? It’s in the leaked minutes of the LETAG group…

What do I mean? The “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” (LETAG) that he’d set up. He called a meeting in May 2004 asking for oil company help in killing off the renewables he had been forced to accept as part of the energy mix…

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 John Howard was under pressure to say yes to a national emissions trading scheme. One had been defeated in 2000, thanks to his henchman Nick Minchin, but this time the whole Cabinet – the Treasurer, the Foreign Affairs, the Environment guy etc were all united in agreeing that Australia should have a national emissions trading scheme. Howard didn’t want it, so he delayed the decision by a month. He then consulted with a couple of his mates, stiffened his spine, came back and afterwards and said “no.” And was able to do it, though the action was then pilloried and used by Labour in 2006-7, to show just how anti climate action Howard had been. 

By the way, we know about this meeting, but not from its memoirs or anyone else’s. But because the information is contained in the minutes of a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group. The minutes were not usually released, but these were leaked. And they were leaked, because at a later meeting in 2004, Howard was pleading with big business to help him smash renewables. Yes, you read that right. 

What I think we can learn from this

There is a jail cell with John Howard’s name on it at the Hague.

What happened next

Howard ruled until November 2007. And over his 11 years caused enormous damage to Australia, not just on climate policy (though obviously that’s a biggie).

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

August 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 6, 1990, a BBC Panorama documentary made it as far as the colonies….

1990 Political climate [videorecording] / reporter Steve Bradshaw ; producer Charles Furneaux Published Sydney : Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1990#

 (In the UK it had been called “The Big Heat” and was broadcast on May 21.1990)

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/22a5069010204a1ea1421917335be902

The Big Heat

As the cold war ends, world leaders are already beginning to fight the climate war. They have been warned by scientists that global warming, caused by industrialisation and pollution, will cause a dramatic increase in storms, floods and droughts around the world. But there is bitter disagreement over who should pay the cost of preventing such disastrous climatic change. Should the burden fall on the west, with the risk of recession and a fall in living standards, or should Third World countries also foot the bill, even though it may mean hunger and poverty?

As part of One World week, Stephen Bradshaw reports from Britain, America and India on the politics of the climate, and reveals the latest scientific evidence on the future of our weather. Producer Charles Furneaux Editor Mark Thompson

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 there was an insatiable appetite, it seemed, for documentaries about climate change. And the ABC showing this BBC input is nothing particularly newsworthy. But this stuff was going on all the time.

What I think we can learn from this is that when an issue is hot, there is a provision of documentaries, think pieces, books, etc.  Most end up in obscurity, deserved or otherwise. Or are cited without being read.

What happened next

The moment passed, it always does. It always has until now – now the issue isn’t going away because the consequences are piling up….

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
Industry Associations International processes

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 5, 2010…

A group of academics who have been working with the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) and the Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII) have called for diplomats attending the upcoming Bonn and Mexico climate talks and summit to take insurance into account.

A policy brief issued by the academic groups calls for insurance to play a key role in reducing climate change risks and influencing climate adaptation projects.

“Our research over the past years has shown that insurance solutions – with coordinated public-private action and some international support – has the potential to help vulnerable countries and people adapt to climate change”, stated Koko Warner (UNU-EHS), lead author of the policy brief ‘Solutions for Vulnerable Countries and People’. “Now it is time to move from knowledge to action. The need to link DRR and insurance and scaling them up is greater than ever to get the critical mass for adaptation”, Dr. Warner continued. 

https://www.artemis.bm/news/academics-say-insurance-could-play-key-role-in-reducing-climate-change-risks/

Home

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Copenhagen gathering had been a complete failure. And so academics thought that if they could geinsurance companies involved, then it might shake loose some of the intransigence. I don’t know if they knew it, but Greenpeace had tried the same shtick 15 years earlier at the first COP, in Berlin, with very limited success. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people always think that there is a button that can be pushed, a lever that can be pulled, to get us out of this fix. But it probably would require Cthulhu pushing and pulling with all of its tentacles repeatedly to make the machine shift. 

What happened next

The insurance companies put out some glossy reports and there was some hand-wringing and the carbon dioxide kept accumulating, 

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 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

On this day, 35 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the pivotal “Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, a meeting of the Australian government’s Federal Cabinet calls for a report on what can be done.

We don’t know more because that particular cabinet submission hasn’t been examined for release

But it did lead to THIS report, in April of the following year

NB Thanks to Senator Rex Patrick for the tweet about this, and to Sally who can’t wander who alerted to me to it.

The context 

The spooks at the Office of National Assessments had produced a report for Cabinet about the Greenhouse Effect, back in 1981, but it’s not clear it was ever discussed or seen by Fraser/Howard/Peackock etc. Through the 1980s, climate scientists got more certain – and more vocal – about the threat. Hawke’s science minister Barry Jones had LONG been aware of the climate problem.  Jones had managed to get funding for a “Commission for the Future” (something New Zealand had had already, and the Swedes had done too in the early 1970s).  

To quote myself from a 2017 Conversation article –

“Meanwhile, the Commission for the Future, founded by the then federal science minister Barry Jones, was seeking a cause célèbre. The Australian Academy of Science organised a dinner of scientists to suggest possible scientific candidates.

“The Commission’s chair, Phillip Adams, recalls that problems such as nuclear war, genetic modification, artificial intelligence, were all proposed. Finally, though:

…the last bloke to talk was right at the far end of the table. Very quiet gentleman… He said, ‘You’re all wrong – it’s the dial in my laboratory, and the laboratories of my colleagues around the world.’ He said, ‘Every day, we see the needle going up, because of what we call the greenhouse effect.‘

The first big project that the Commission for the Future did – in combination with the CSIRO –  was “The Greenhouse Project”, with Australian scientists Graeme Pearman and Barrie Pittock neck deep.  

The Greenhouse Project had launched in September 1987.  There was a big scientific conference a couple of months later.  The Toronto conference (which Pearman attended) was in June, by which time preparations were already well underway for a series of public meetings, linked by satellite, to happen in the capital cities of every state, in November 1988 (Greenhouse 88).


What we can learn

We knew enough to act. The pushback from industry and denialists began in 1989, and was successful in scuppering what might have been a half-decent response.  And here we are.


What happened next

A detailed report was tabled to Cabinet the following April. It makes frankly horrifying reading.  In May 1989 the Federal Environment Minister tried to get the Cabinet to agree to a target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2005.  He was blocked by Paul Keating, Treasurer.

Eventually, just before the Second World Climate Conference, the Australian Cabinet DID accept a version of the “Toronto Target” but with so many caveats as to make it pointless. And Keating, still in Cabinet, extracted an agreement that the Productivity Commission would produce a report.

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.