Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Uncategorized

May 6, 2004 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard meets business, to kill renewables

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 6, 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard convened a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group in order to …  get them to help him kill off renewables. This is really quite extraordinary. 

The Federal Government and fossil-fuel industry executives discussed ways to stifle growing investment in renewable energy projects at a secret meeting earlier this year.

Prime Minister John Howard called the meeting on May 6, five weeks before releasing the energy white paper on June 14.

The white paper favours massive investment in research to make fossil fuels cleaner, at the expense of schemes boosting growth in renewable energy.

Mr Howard called together the fossil-fuel-based Lower Emissions Technology Advisory Group to seek advice on ways to avoid extending the mandatory renewable energy targets scheme.

Anon, 2004. PM called talks to derail renewable energy The Age, October 3, 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a federal election coming. Opposition Leader Mark Latham was having some success, talking about renewables. The existing renewable scheme that had grudgingly started in 2002, was proving more successful than Howard wanted. Vestas had opened up a factory in Tasmania. And it was all looking as if Howard wasn’t going to be able to continue to easily rubbish renewables and therefore he tried to call in favours. We only know about this because it was leaked later that year.

What I think we can learn from this 

The slowness of the arrival of renewables is not simply a question about whether the technology is not ready or “Oh, the business models aren’t ready.” There is also often explicit effective resistance from business and from government. It’s rare for them to be caught as red-handed as this. It didn’t seem to have much short term damage for Howard who won the 2004 Election.

What happened next

The Vestas factory in Tasmania shut down. Australian progress on renewables was slowed. John Howard deserves to rot in a fiery hell for what he did to Australia but personally, I don’t believe in hell so I’d just be happy to see him rot in a prison cell in The Hague on trial for crimes against humanity.

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
Science Scientists

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

Seventy years ago, on this day, May 5, 1953, the modern “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” era began.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Plass had become interested in the question of carbon dioxide buildup while being paid by Ford Motor Company. He had corresponded with British steam engineer and scientist Guy Callendar. Plass only looked at how carbon dioxide actually functions in the real world, and whether the bands become saturated or not (they don’t).

What I think we can learn from this

This is the pivotal moment, when someone takes the carbon dioxide theory and starts hammering it out…

This  classic warning went around the world. It was eye-catching, and it was syndicated, certainly in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. And it probably helped. George Wendt in his writing in the UNESCO magazine Courier, which also got syndicated. So you can see these couple of people speaking up about it.  

Plass’s warning also popped up in Time, Newsweek, and elsewhere, this was really consequential. 

What happened next

Plass kept writing and thinking about climate build up carbon buildup. In 1956, he had an academic article published in Tellus, the Swedish scientific journal.- “the  carbon dioxide theory of climate change”, and also a popular article in the American Scientist.  

He was there in 1961 at the New York Academy of Sciences/American Meteorological Society meeting and at the 1963 Conservation Foundation meeting. But that was his last gasp on the topic… 

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 Industry Associations

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

Fifty years ago, on this day, May 4, 1973, the  Australian Mining Industry Council advertised for an environmental policy officer.

1973  AMIC advert for an environmental policy officer in Canberra Times

Canberra Times 5 May p 23

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the relatively new Australian Mining Industry Council is advertising for an environmental policy officer because this hippie bollocks about pollution was clearly not going to go away. I have had the unalloyed pleasure of reading the environmental information bulletins of the Australian Mining Industry Council. They’re available at the National Library of Australia in Tasmania in Canberra. And they are silent as far as I could tell, on the question of greenhouse gases.

What I think we can learn from this

Not entirely surprising, because trade associations are there to help companies fight today’s battles. And greenhouse was not today’s battle in 1973 74 75.

What happened next

AMIC threw its weight around in the 80s and 90s, to the point it became so toxic it had to be rebranded as the Minerals Council of Australia(see Geoff Allen’s consultancy work on this in 1994). 

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
Australia Coal Cultural responses Denial Economics of mitigation Industry Associations

 May 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence… – 

The greenies need to be put back in their box…. Lobbying, economic modelling, scare campaigns, smears. The usual…

“The recent shift in the environmental debate to promote global rather than regional goals is causing alarm among the world’s leading industrialists because of its potential to distort world trade and regional economies.

“The impact on Australia is assuming major proportions, with an Access Economics study to be released next week revealing that one-third of almost$40 billion in proposed mining and manufacturing projects are under threat of environmental veto”

 Massey, M. 1990. Environmental debate tops agenda at coal conference. Australian Financial Review, 4 May, p. 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that industry had only just started to push back against green groups. It had lazily assumed that the whole thing was a fad that would blow itself out very quickly. It was only really in late 1989/early 1990 that they started, in Australia, to properly co-ordinate a firm response…

What I think we can learn from this

When they wreck everyone’s future, that’s within normal parameters. If anyone tries to stop them, even slow them, that counts as “distortion”

What happened next

They won.  The UN process was effectively kneecapped. Domestic processes were kneecapped. They got rich. The atmosphere got enriched too – with insane amounts of carbon dioxide…

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
Renewable energy United States of America

May 3, 1978 – First and last “Sun Day”

Forty five years ago, on this day, May 3, 1978, the first and last “Sun Day” organised by Dennis Hayes took place

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Day

QUOTE FROM  In the rain! (Graetz, 2011: 117)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Denis Hayes had been neck deep in the Earth Day organising of 1970 and spent the rest of the decade trying to get people to take alternative energy solar energy seriously.

The National Academy of Sciences report on climate had come out in July of 1977. Carter had signed the Climate Change Act that had been proposed by George Brown. People were beginning to think that carbon dioxide might really screw us. Increasing the amount of solar energy was clearly a good idea, but didn’t get implemented. 

What I think we can learn from this

Solutions technological, political, economic, social, have existed and they have constantly been out fought, outspent by existing vested interests and the natural small c conservatism and inertia and obduracy of large technical systems.

Getting a new technology to be accepted is a very very hard task.

What happened next

Well, famously, the Reagan administration took the solar panels off the White House in 1986. But by then Reagan’s goons had already done a very good job in destroying momentum towards ecological sanity (not that a second Carter term would necessarily have delivered).

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

May 2, 2019 – Committee on Climate change report on net zero by 2050

Four years ago, on this day, May 2, 2019,  The UK Committee on Climate Change released its report on the  UK becoming net zero by 2050

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 414.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that once the UK had signed up to the Paris Agreement, which it had ratified in late 2016, it was pretty clear that the existing target of an 80% reduction by 2050 on a 1990 baseline was not going to be adequate as the UK contribution to keeping temperatures below two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Therefore, the target would need revisiting. The logical outfit to do that revisiting was, of course, the Committee on Climate Change. It did the work and released it in 2019, by which time a bunch of MPs – including Conservatives who had campaigned for Brexit – were pushing for a 2050 net zero target. 

What I think we can learn from this

Big, “round number” promises can have serious institutional consequences if there’s enough momentum underneath them. So, the 1988 Toronto target was a big round number target, but it didn’t have institutional momentum behind it. There wasn’t enough intellectual and political heft, whereas the Paris Target of 2015 was different, and has been more consequential politically. Not I hasten to add, in terms of real life reduction in emissions, but you can’t have everything 

What happened next

And so it came to pass in the final days of the Theresa May administration, the 2008 Climate Change Act was amended to raise the target. This has had serious implications for the attention paid to sectors of the economy, especially industry, which had previously thought they could be in that 20% that could be emitting in the year 2050.

Lots of reports and activity about “Net Zero by 2050”. We shall see…

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 Science

May 1, 1980 – ABC talks about atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement

Forty-three years ago, on this day, May 1, 1980, the ABC  Nationwide TV programme covered climate change

Item details for: C475, 1942227  “Baseline’ station set up on Cape Grim in north-west Tasmania to monitor levels of carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Wooley refers to the ‘glasshouse effect’, prior to the now established term ‘greenhouse effect’. Permaculture, founded by Bill Mollison, could be counter to greenhouse effect.”

Source National Archives

The atmospheric ppm was 341.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists were making really accurate measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and had been for a long time. By 1980, there was more and more international awareness of the climate issue. And so for example, two weeks before the Nationwide programme, the Age newspaper, had run a story about “World ecology is endangered.” [Link to AOY]  So it may simply be that when the CSIRO sent out a press release about Cape Grim that the Nationwide producer said, “Hell yeah, there’s a hook for this.” Who knows? Lost in the mysteries, the histories of time.

What I think we can learn from this

Anyone wanting to pay attention knew what might be/was on the horizon. It’s also the case that it is much harder for researchers to figure out what was shown on television than was written in newspapers and magazines, which leave a more searchable digital trace.

What happened next

By August of that year, the Australian Academy of Science held a conference in Canberra about climate change. In 1981, the Office of National Assessments wrote a secret report about the carbon dioxide problem. But Australia continued to be largely asleep. Despite many, many attempts to wake her 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.

References

Categories
Coal Energy United States of America

April 30, 2001 – Dick Cheney predicts 1000 new power plants

Twenty two years ago, on this day, April 30, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney has a fever dream in Toronto calling for 1300 new power stations

In an April 30 speech, Cheney said that the U.S. needs to build at least 1,300 electric power plants (averaging 300 megawatts) between now and 2020, “more than one new plant per week.” Cheney downplayed the potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources – suggesting that conservation is just “a sign of personal virtue” and that relying on renewables would threaten “our way of life.”

http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/1300powerplants.htm

[This gets him in trouble, he bravely sends out his wife Lynne the next day to “clarify.” He can’t do it himself because of ‘laryngitis’]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the de facto Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, says that he wants 1000 new coal fired power stations. This is an echo of Nixon’s project independence in 1974, which Cheney will have been well aware of, since Cheney had been serving in the Nixon White House at this point. The context was that Cheney’s puppet George Bush had announced that he was not going to continue negotiations around ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, in effect, they thought, killing it. That wasn’t the case, because the Russians eventually signed but I’m getting ahead of myself.

What I think we can learn from this

Old white men don’t learn. And they have visions of power, in both the literal and metaphorical sense, to be grand numbers, “look at my works, ye mighty and despair.” And the way that these visions are promulgated loudly and long, is partly designed to demonstrate to them and their supporters, their power, but also to demoralise those awful environmentalists who believe that – and this is the heresy –  there are limits to what humans both should and indeed can do to the planet without serious consequences.

What happened next

Cheney’s vision of 1000 power stations did as well as his vision of Iraq as a peaceful American dependency full of grateful Iraqis (*)

(* or maybe we should not take his public pronouncements as evidence of naivete, but rather a willingness to lie…)

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 Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Twenty five years ago, on this day, April 29, 1998, Australian Environment Minister Robert HIll signed the Kyoto Protocol while in New York.

 As distinct from ratifying it… Robert Hill in New York…

R Hill (Minister for the Environment),Hill signs historic agreement to fight global warming, media release, 29 April, 1998.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had secured an absurdly sweet deal at Kyoto. The so-called reduction target meant it could increase its emissions to 112%, and 130%  once a land clearing clause loophole was taken into account. 

It wasn’t clear at this stage whether Australia would try to ratify the Kyoto Protocol –  a federal election was due relatively soon. And so it was mostly harmless signing. So they did it. And not signing would have caused more trouble than it was worth.

What I think we can learn from this

You have to know the details of a process, so you don’t get over-excited about what (you want it to) mean.

What happened next

In September of 1998 it was leaked that the Cabinet had agreed that Australia would not ratify unless the US did. And the US was very unlikely to do that. In the end, in 2002, on Earth Day, because he has a sense of humour. Prime Minister John Howard, to no one’s great surprise, but many people’s shock and dismay, announced Australia would not, in fact, ratify Kyoto.

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 Carbon Pricing

 April 28, 1993 – Australia to monitor carbon tax experience

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 28, 1993, after returning from Washington, Australia’s environment minister changed her tune.

 Australia would watch closely the international trend towards an energy tax and the effect such a tax would have on curbing greenhouse gases, the Minister for Environment, Ros Kelly, said yesterday.

AAP, 1993. Aust to monitor energy-tax experience: Kelly. Canberra Times, 29 April, p. 15 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ros Kelly had just come back from a visit to the United States where President Clinton had given her a shout out at a press conference where he talked about his BTU tax proposal, which he had launched in February of that year.  Kelly had in 1992, been explicit in saying a carbon tax was off the table for Australia (see here). 

So this represented a bit of a turnaround, and will have alerted anti-climate people in the BCA and AMIC  to the need to get their ducks in a row ahead of another battle.  It will have been another reason to set up the “Industry Greenhouse Network”…. 

What I think we can learn from this is that issues or solutions that get dumped can be brought back because of the variety of political and personal factors. And this will be noticed because anti climate action activists remain vigilant, of course; that’s their job.

What happened next

Kelly didn’t last much longer as Environment Minister because of a scandal. Her replacement, Graham Richardson didn’t last. Because well, Graham Richardson. But then the next one, John Faulkner expressed interest in bringing in a carbon price or at least a basic carbon tax. And then the battle was on again 

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.