Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

February 4, 1998 – Ombudsman on ABARE and its dodgy af #climate modelling

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 4th, 1998, greenies ‘win’ – an admission that a state-funded outfit shouldn’t have excluded them (which it did so it could push out economic modelling bullshit unfettered).

Ombudsman releases ABARE investigation report

Commonwealth Ombudsman Philippa Smith said the ACF complaint about ABARE raised important issues about how government agencies developed and consulted on public policy. 

In June 1997, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) complained to the Ombudsman because the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) refused to waive the $50,000 per annum fee required to join a steering committee it convened to provide a ‘sounding board’ and data and technical advice for its GIGABARE climate change model.

GIGABARE and MEGABARE are climate change economic models which analyse the economic effects of greenhouse gas emission policy.

Ms Smith said: ‘In my opinion ABARE’s climate change modelling is best characterised as a public good and relates to important public policy issues.

‘Any Steering Committee or consultative process with these responsibilities should strive for a balance of interests and technical skills rather than being a mechanism for fund raising.’

Ms Smith said the case also highlighted the importance of planning and protocols in the receipt, acknowledgment and use of external funding or sponsorship by agencies allowing outside involvement in developing important public policy issues.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE) had been putting out bullshit numbers about the cost of climate mitigation thanks to its ridiculous MEGABARE economic model, the Australian Conservation Foundation had tried to get on the board overseeing mega bar without paying the 50k a bar had said no. ACF had complained to the ombudsman, and the report came out on this day. 

What I think we can learn from this is that economic modeling exists to make astrology look respectable, as per, John Kenneth Galbraith, these are just made up bullshit numbers, but once they are in an official report and then spouted by the minister or the Prime Minister, they take on a solidity that they do not deserve, and the people trying to stop anything from happening know this, which is why it’s one of their favorite techniques.

What happened next ABARE and other outfits kept peddling utter fucking Tosh, and the newspapers kept publicizing it because it was good, cheap, free copy.

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
Podcasts

Podcast review: Every breath you take, Alice Bell on Cursed Object podcast

So, following on from review of Rebecca John talking about Charles Keeling and the Air Pollution Foundation on the History of California podcast, here’s some brief thoughts on Alice Bell on the Curated Object.

If you know of podcasts that deal – even tangentially – with the history of man-made climate change (research, politics, etc), then let me know.

Alice Bell, author of Our Biggest Experiment, was recently a guest on the Cursed Object podcast.

The objects she brought were

a) a jar of London air (Euston Road)

b) a 1989 edition of the Radio Times which was all about Being Green (I’ve seen that issue, it’s extraordinary).

Bell was a confident and engaging guest, and the whole episode is worth your time.

Three things stood out for me, but your mileage will vary.

  • Bell’s point about the intertwining of energy and democracy – e.g Plug plot  Riots (there’s also all that Carbon Democracy stuff by Timothy Mitchell, I don’t remember is she mentioned it. She probably did.
  • The point that people who went climbing mountains and glaciers in the 19th century left, ah, “spoor” which is now back with us, thanks to all the melting.
  • A nice anecdote about how, when she was doing walking tours of London’s climate history (Shell, DECC etc) then different people would turn up to take part with their own stories – one couple whose first date, in 1947, had had to be moved because the smog was so bad the busses weren’t running (before the 1956 Clean Air Act, the response to the deadly December 1952 smog, air quality was astonishingly bad. It still is, just less visible now).
Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 3, 1995 – Senator McMullan sows the CEDA of our doom..

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1995, a Labor Senator – and I hope you are sitting down when you read this – assures business-types that “the economy” [i.e. corporate profits] is a higher priority than reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

 In a largely unreported speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Melbourne on Friday [3rd February 1995] , Senator McMullan said: “The levy will be dealt with on the basis of its appropriateness as a measure to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rather than on the amount of revenue it might raise.” “What we need to avoid is any situation where we unilaterally place a wide range of export and import-competing industries at a competitive disadvantage without actually contributing effectively to reducing global or domestic greenhouse emissions,” he added.

Gill, P. 1995. Official warns of small cut in gas with carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 7 February, p.3. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was an almighty battle going on within the Keating government about a carbon tax and the opponents of said tax were trying to ally shop and venue shop and water down and weaken as much as they could. This speech to an economics business think tank/talking shop called CEDA should be seen in that context.

What I think we can learn from this is that introducing a new order of things, as per Machiavelli, is extremely difficult, even if it’s urgent and important. Perhaps especially if it’s urgent and important. 

What happened next: The carbon tax was defeated. Emissions trading schemes were defeated. Finally, Julia Gillard in 2011 got one through. But oh my, what a shitshow. 

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.

Also on this day: 

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Activism

February 2nd is Groundhog Day!

Well, do you feel lucky, Punxsutawney Phil?

The context was…. Here we go again and again and again, day after day, not learning anything. And if that movie existed in a way that Bill Murray never learned anything, it would be a short movie, and no one would watch it. But the question is, how do we learn?

See also smugosphere, emotacycle.

What I think we can learn from this is that we don’t learn.

What happened next

Bill Murray’s star is somewhat tarnished by credible accusations of quite shitty behavior. 

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.

Also on this day: 

Categories
Academia United Kingdom

February 1, 2005 – “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” conference begins

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 1st, 2005,

… an international conference called “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases”[17] examined the link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, and the 2 °C (3.6 °F) ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming. Previously, this had generally been accepted as being 550 ppm.[18]

The conference took place under the United Kingdom’s presidency of the G8, with the participation of around 200 ‘internationally renowned’ scientists from 30 countries. It was chaired by Dennis Tirpak and hosted by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, from 1 February to 3 February.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Symposium_on_avoiding_dangerous_climate_change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Blair, neck deep in the Iraq War and his special bromance with George  W. Bush was very keen that the G7 in Gleneagles that year not talk about said war. So there was the Make Poverty History, bullshit. (And by bullshit, I don’t mean the sincere efforts by the NGOs and individuals, I mean UK Government.)

And there was also the climate agenda, so the academic conference at Exeter University must be seen in the context of avoiding talking about Iraq. The conference was held over three days, lots of fine words, including words about carbon capture and storage. It’s not so clear to me that anyone talked about how this was already a 20 year old agenda, if you put the starting gun at Villach..

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been talking about avoiding dangerous climate change, and we haven’t. And now we are “coping” with dangerous climate change – that  would have to be the title Or “bracing for the impact of the unavoided and now unavoidable existential threat climate change.” I don’t know what you would call it. 

What happened next:  More people died in the Iraq War of choice. Blair finally went in whenever it was 2007.  And no one ever was held to account for what they did.

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.

Also on this day: 

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climateFeb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker

Categories
Activism Australia

January 31, 2009 – Climate Action Summit

Sixteen years ago, on this day, January 31st, 2009,

 From January 31 to February 3, 2009, over 150 community based climate action groups and more than 500 people came together in Canberra to talk, debate, strategise and take action on climate change at Australia’s Climate Action Summit. 

http://www.foe.org.au/australias-climate-action-summit

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from late 2006 onwards, there had been a great deal of awareness/alarm about climate change and its impacts in Australia and various actions in various places. By late 2008 it was obvious that the Rudd Government was doing a tremendous amount of backsliding and caving in to vested interests. 

And so the Climate Action Summit was held in a period where there was a fragile elite consensus that wasn’t really worth a bucket of warm spit, and citizens were trying to do it for themselves. 

What I think we can learn from this is that citizens can’t do it for themselves. They have to somehow create irresistible pressure on elected representatives, on states, on bureaucracies. But this is much easier said than actually done. 

What happened next

Climate change, oddly, continued to be an open sore, kind of permanently, but especially until the end of 2011 when Julia Gillard managed to get climate legislation through the parliament.

Various climate action summits and efforts at NVDA and efforts at public pressure have continued ever since, and here we are – fubarred. 

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.

Also on this day: 

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind

Categories
Uncategorized

January 30, 2024 – Climate Committee counsels action

One year ago, on this day, January 30th, 2024,

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has again called on the government to strengthen efforts to meet domestic climate targets, warning that “mixed messages” on the UK’s decarbonisation plans risk damaging the country’s leadership position at UN climate talks.

The independent advisory body will today publish a review of the UK’s role at last year’s COP28 Climate Summit in Dubai, which praises efforts to deliver a broadly ambitious new international accord, but warns urgent action is now required to deliver on the goals set under the UAE Consensus.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 422ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a year ago, the Climate Change Committee, created in 2008 as part of the whole “Climate Change Act” thing, gave its latest advice to Sunak’s government (as if Sunak’s government was listening! As if Starmer’s will). 

What will be more interesting is what advice it gives Starmer’s government about the seventh carbon budget. This is set to be released on February 26th. Heathrow expansion?!

What I think we can learn from this is that quasi-independent bodies like the Climate Change Committee can offer all the advice they like, and politicians will, by and large, ignore them unless the advice is going to suit the interests of big business. Oh, call me a cynic. 

What happened next

Well, it was only a year ago. Nothing much has happened in British politics since then.

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.

Also on this day: 

January 30, 1961 – New York Times reports world is cooling

January 30, 1989 – “Hawkie” flies off to flog coal

January 30, 1989 – Je ne fais rein pour regretter… #climate jargon

Categories
Podcasts

Podcast review: Rebecca John, Deceptive PR Strategy Pioneered in 1950s California to Hide Climate Change Risk

I am going to start doing reviews of climate change podcasts that touch on the long gory history (especially pre-1988). If you have recommendations, get in touch. The first review is positive (yay). Rebecca John appearing on the History of California Podcast to talk about research she did about the “Air Pollution Foundation” – an early 1950s oil-industry funded group that (spoilers) hired a young Charles Keeling to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Tl; dr – good questions, comprehensive but not verbose answers, and some methodological nuggets for the history geeks; what’s not to love?

The review

History of California Podcast

The History of California podcast looks really good. I’ve only listened to one episode (so far), and it was even better than really good. And it’s an interview with Rebecca John who has done lots of award winning documentaries, etc, and has been fossicking in the archives for what we knew about climate change when. “we” meaning the elites, not just the scientists. This is, of course, All Our Yesterday’s jam.

John is being interviewed here about one particular article published in January of 2024 about how the oil and gas companies were funding something called the air pollution foundation in 1953 54 in Los Angeles, and how that foundation funded the first carbon dioxide measurement work of Charles Keeling, who has neglected to mention it in his memoir.

This is what you want from a podcast. The questions are both on point and to the point, the answers are comprehensive without being train- spottery. And there’s some, you know, fun methodological facts. I totally recognize that you’re sitting in an archive, and you read some phrase, and you think, “hello?”, and then you pull on that bit of string and kapow. Well, it’s takes hard work, obviously.

So have a listen, and I’ll certainly be checking up more of the history of California podcast 

Two final things.

John has a really interesting news piece on DeSmog that begins thus

An Israeli private investigator wanted by U.S. authorities for allegedly carrying out a hack-and-leak operation commissioned on behalf of ExxonMobil is fighting against his extradition to a Brooklyn, NY, detention center. 

Also thanks to John’s shout out at the end, I found the specific files on Inside Climate News about Exon “the path not taken.” That led me to a trove of materials, including the one I just put up, from January 29, 1980, which is going viral (by my standards) at the moment.


Next podcast review – Alice Bell as a guest on The Cursed Object.

See also Green and Red podcast (haven’t watched yet)

Categories
United States of America

January 29, 1980 -Exxon HQ tells its Vice-Presidents that CO2 build-up is “a potentially serious problem”

On this day, 45 years ago, the head of Exxon’s Science and Technology Department laid out some basic facts. We know this thanks to the sterling investigative work of Inside Climate News. You can read the whole thing here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since 1977, Exxon scientists had been helping educate the C-suite about what Exxon’s product (i.e. fossil fuels) might be doing to the atmosphere, and helping oceanographers with their research.

What we learn is that, to coin a phrase “Exxon knew.”

What happened next Exxon kept supporting climate research for a couple of years. In the mid-80s it did a reverse ferret and became the denial generating and supporting scamp we all know and love.

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, obv

Also on this day: 

January 29, 2001 – President Bush announces “energy taskforce” #TaskforceAnnouncementGrift

January 29, 2004 – John Daly, Australian skeptic, dies

January 29, 2006 – Attempts to gag James Hansen revealed

Categories
United Kingdom

January 28, 2020 –  Scientists warn politicians #02: United Kingdom

Five years ago, on this day, January 28th, 2020, a deeply unfunny clown got an education.

A slide show that Prime Minister Boris Johnson says helped convince him on climate change has been revealed for the first time. The slides used to “teach” him about climate science have been released after a Freedom of Information request by UK climate website Carbon Brief. While Mr Johnson has urged action on climate change, he previously, as a journalist, expressed scepticism. He called the presentation, given just after he took office, “very important”. The “teach in”, as it was described in email correspondence, took place in the Cabinet Room of Number 10 Downing Street on 28 January 2020.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60203674

See Carbon Brief’s story here- 

Revealed: The 11 slides that finally convinced Boris Johnson about global warming

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 414ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Johnson had been dismissing climate change and renewable energy for decades. His dad, as a journalist for The Spectator in the late 1960s had written sensibly about carbon dioxide build up and environmental issues. Pity his son never read any of that, eh? 

What I think we can learn from this is that an expensive education will not make you serious or smart.

What happened next. The pandemic.  The emissions dipped a bit. Then came roaring back.

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.

Also on this day: 

January 28, 1969 – Santa Barbara Oil spill

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK