Category: anti-reflexivity

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

June 19, 2012 – Abbott having to defend renewables. Oh the hilarity.

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 19th, 2012,

TENSIONS have erupted in the Coalition over a key climate change policy less than two weeks before the introduction of the carbon tax from July 1.

Tony Abbott was yesterday forced to stare down a backbench challenge to the party’s support for the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target as senior backbenchers blamed it for adding to electricity prices amid a backlash over last week’s 18 per cent price increases in NSW and South Australia.

Maher, S. 2012. Abbott forced to quell backbench climate rift. The Australian, 20 June, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was that the Liberal Party had gone into the 1990 federal election with a stronger emissions reduction target than labour, but had lost that election very narrowly and felt betrayed by big green organisations and green voters generally, and then they become very actively hostile to all things environmental, and especially the problem of carbon dioxide build up. 

Tony Abbott had become leader of the Liberals in December, or late November, 2009 having given a speech where he said that the science of climate change was absolute crap. He had successfully demolished Kevin Rudd, (well, Rudd had helped demolish himself, to be fair) and also made endless attacks on Rudd’s successor as Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Abbott was basically an unguided missile, A WRECKING BALL, a very limited human being, 

The specific context was that by this point, he had lost the fight to prevent a great big tax on everything i.e., Gillard’s emissions trading scheme; and while he was still Leader of the Opposition, there were ructions, and some of his back benchers were getting high on their own supply and were blocking stuff that Abbott found it useful not to have blocked.

What I think we can learn is this: that when you unleash demons, they don’t always do what you want.

What happened next: Abbott continued to be an effective leader of the opposition. I don’t mean that as a compliment, necessarily. And became prime minister in 2013 thanks to the Murdoch press having demonised Julia Gillard to an astonishing degree and Abbott was then toppled by his own party, with the most, perhaps the most hilarious moment being when a third of his party voted for an empty chair because, rather than him as leader.

He is now back, as President of the Liberals, which will doubtless have the young, and especially the young women, flocking to join the Libs.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

https://theconversation.com/who-tilts-at-windmills-explaining-hostility-to-renewables-77762

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 19, 1989 – George Brown speech to Student Pugwash – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood” – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial

June 17, 2007 – “Carbon Sense” to the world

Nineteen years ago, on this day, June 17th, 2007, 

“Carbon Sense Coalition is a voluntary group of people concerned about the extent to which carbon is wrongly vilified in Western societies, particularly in government, the media, and in business circles. We aim to restore balance and reason to the carbon debate, and to explain and defend the key role of carbon in production of most of our energy for heat, light, and transportation, and all of our food.”

June 17th, 2007 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was from the late 1980s in Australia and elsewhere, and the United States especially, there was an active – what’s the word phrase I’m looking for,? – fucking stupid climate denial movement, or bunch of individuals occasionally coalescing as a “movement” in the Australian context that would be people like John Daly with his demented book the Greenhouse Trap. Daly died in 2004 and also outfits like the so called Lavoisier group. 

The specific context was that the carbon dioxide build up issue had been actively suppressed by John Howard as Prime Minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

But this had become impossible for Howard to do in late 2006; the issue just burst onto the scene again thanks to the endless, or seemingly endless, Millennium drought, Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth, ratification of Kyoto Protocol, leading to new UN negotiations, social movement activism like Climate Camp in the United Kingdom and so forth. Then you had new Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, having toppled Kim Beasley, using the climate issue as a stick to beat John Howard with, especially over ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had famously not done.

Therefore it was clear that the climate issue would be live for another year or two, at least (in the end, it was until 2011). 

What I think we can learn is this: So here you have a bunch of intellectual inadequates giving themselves the title ‘carbon sense’, which is, of course, a play on common sense. And this invocation of common sense tells you a lot in the same way that it was common sense, that the world was flat, that women shouldn’t vote, that black people should be slaves, that blood letting made you stronger, etc, etc, that kind of common sense. 

What happened next: I am sure they are still around. Gaia help us all.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 17, 1957 – Guy Callendar writes more truth bombs – “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”

June 17, 1994 – Moron versus physics. Sorry, “Moran” – All Our Yesterdays

June 17, 2009 – Blistering speech about how “The Climate Nightmare is Upon Us” by Christine Milne – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

May 29, 2007 – Howard derides Stern as “English”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 29th, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard plays the “he’s an Englishman” card versus economist Nick Stern… 

However, in a Parliamentary debate in May 2007, the Prime Minister suggested the [Stern] review was Eurocentric propaganda. He stated that the report of the Government’s Task Group on Emissions Trading:

… will not be a grab bag of proposals taken holus-bolus from a report written by an Englishman for European conditions and designed to promote the political objectives of the British government. That is what the Stern report is all about. Stern is not the biblical scholar of climate change that is posited by those who sit opposite. Stern has written from the perspective of an Englishman, from the European circumstance and from the European point of view. 73

Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 29 May 2007, 48 (John Howard, Prime Minister).

Macintosh, 2008 page 66-7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that John Howard, as prime minister, had spent the 10 years from 1996 to 2006 amplifying and extending the previous Keating Labor government’s hostility to climate change action. Howard had painted himself into a corner, and it was understood that he wasn’t going to be able to paint himself out, or leap over the wet paint, or whatever the metaphor might be. 

The specific context was that  the UK Labour Tony Blair government had asked a World Bank economist called Nick Stern to produce a report on the “economics of climate change.” This was largely to overcome Treasury intransigence on the question of climate policy. The report, the Stern review, was released in late 2006.

It was at this point, not entirely unrelated, that John Howard had had to perform a U-turn and announce the creation of the ‘Shergold Taskforce’, which would look into the economics of emissions trading.  

What I think we can learn from this  is that even the best politicians – and Howard was a good politician. I do not mean that as a compliment – run out of steam and run out of road, and by this time, Howard had. Now, very rarely does a politician know when to leave the stage. If Howard had announced his retirement in 2006 his legacy, his “reputation”, would have been assured. But they all come to believe their own propaganda. They all come to believe that they are somehow indispensable. So… no one is indispensable. 

What happened next. 

Here we are 20 years later, at the beginning of the Fafocene.  Economics has not saved us. What we needed was more, but we didn’t know how to get it. And the opposition to ‘it’ was extremely deep-seated and almost insurmountable.  

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: 

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

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

May 29, 1989- “We will all be flooded” –

May 29, 1992- ANAO says it will look at DPIE’s energy management programme 

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

 May 23, 2000 – Industry versus greenhouse trigger

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 

Federal Cabinet faces a showdown over greenhouse environmental issues after ministers yesterday heard alarming predictions that meeting Australia’s emission targets could significantly cut economic growth and boost fuel prices.

The Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, and the Minister for Industry, Senator Nick Minchin, both entered Cabinet yesterday armed with new evidence about the extent of Australia’s greenhouse problems.

Economic research commissioned by Senator Minchin found that forcing industry to meet Australia’s targets under the Kyoto international greenhouse agreement could reduce gross national product by up to 1.4 per cent in 2010.

Taylor, L. and Skulley, M. 2000. Cabinet clash on greenhouse. The Australian Financial Review, 24 May, p1.

And 

Industry started a strong campaign against the Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill’s, proposed greenhouse trigger yesterday. This follows a fiery Cabinet discussion on Tuesday [23rd] over new greenhouse measures proposed by the Senator.

The Federal Cabinet is understood to have reached a clear understanding on Tuesday that no extra greenhouse requirements should be imposed on the proposed $1billion Kogan Creek power station in Queensland.

It rejected a memo from Senator Hill that the project be forced to invest in greenhouse-abatement projects to offset its own emissions. However, a spokesman for the Environment Minister said the Cabinet had not made a final decision.

2000 Taylor, L. 2000. Industry adds its weight to oppose greenhouse move. The Australian Financial Review, May 25, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australian political elites and economic elites had decided to resist climate action. They made this decision not in a smoke-filled room, but sort of collectively in ‘91-92. And they continued to push against any action. Even very moderate action, like a small carbon tax in ‘94-95 set them frothing and foaming at the mouth. 

The specific context was that there was pressure on the Minister for the Environment for a so-called greenhouse trigger, so that big developments would get called in for a proper look and more-than-rubber-stamp approval. 

What I think we can learn from this. Again, industry wants rubber stamps for their big projects that are going to make the money. They don’t want the politicians “interfering,” and they don’t want the politicians to have power and to have democratic control. This is how the game is played. 

What happened next.  The trigger was defeated, and greenhouse triggers have been defeated ever since in Australia, which is essentially a quarry with a state attached. 

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: 

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

May 23, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger – All Our Yesterdays

May 23, 2006 – David Attenborough finally comes out on climate 

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Categories
anti-reflexivity Denial United States of America

February 24, 1994 – Ted Koppel versus the lies. No contest.

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 24, 1994,

On February 24th, 1994, ABC’s Nightline aired a news segment titled, “Is Science for Sale?” Its host, Ted Koppel, explained the piece was prompted by a conversation with then Vice President Al Gore. The segment features many prominent climate change deniers including:

The comments in this segment reflect some of the most common arguments used by climate deniers attempting to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change such as:

  1. Current science is unable to tie increases in greenhouse gases to human activities;
  2. We should rely on present observations rather than inaccurate climate models which are unable to predict future climate scenarios effectively;
  3. Climate policies are unnecessary and would hurt the economy, endanger people, and harm our way of life.

On air, Koppel reported the financial ties of his guests, largely comprised of fossil fuel entities, including consulting fees to Fred Singer from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal and Sun Oil (14:50); funding to Patrick Michaels and Sherwood Idso from the coal interest group Western Fuels Association (12:20; 13:30) ; and support of Ron Arnold’s Wise Use Movement from corporations like Exxon (5:30). The segment also included a clip of Rush Limbaugh, referred to as the “archdeacon of conservatism” boasting, “I can produce as many scientists that say there is not global warming as they can produce that say there is.” He referred to Pat Michaels as “one that I rely on” (12:15).

The segment featured environmental advocates Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund and Vice President Al Gore, however, Jerry Mahlman, previous director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was the only scientist interviewed who challenged the opinions of deniers like Fred Singer, of whom Koppel also referred to as a “scientist.”

Despite the segment’s lack of scientists representing the global consensus on anthropogenic climate change, Koppel comments:

“This is not, you understand, a close call. It’s not as though US scientists are evenly divided or even close to being evenly divided on issues like the greenhouse effect or depletion of the ozone layer. But environmentalists are concerned about even the appearance of a scientific dispute.” (6:09)

1994 02 24 Nightline Ted Koppel – https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/1994-nightline-special-science-for-sale/

UK-EN | D7960 | Curate for cash | Home | Seller | 16×9 | 15s | .mp4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from 1988,eighty-nine onwards, the denialists in the United States had been pushing back as hard as they could against climate science using superannuated physicists like Nirenberg and the George Marshall Institute to muddy the waters. They had done this with significant success.

The specific context was that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had had their asses handed to them over the proposed BTU (i.e.petrol) tax and Gore was therefore probably in a bad mood about all this, and so got talking to Ted Koppel, who was one of the sort of famous news anchors and they did a full on expose of the denialist tropes/

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians have been trying to educate the public and Gore, bless him, has within the constraints of his particular ideology, done more than most. But telling people that they’ve been lied to and showing how they’ve been lied to, turns out it doesn’t work that well, because you’re asking people to admit that they fell for lies, and nobody wants to admit that they fell for lies. 

What happened next: Lies kept coming. They were convenient to believe. The lying campaign stepped up a notch around 1997 as the Kyoto negotiations were underway, and alongside the lies came the emissions, came the increasing concentrations. And I’ve already said this about 10 times this month already, so I won’t repeat myself.

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 24, 1971 – aims of the Department of the Environment

February 24, 2003 – UK Energy White Paper kinda changes the game (a bit).

February 24, 2011 – the fateful press conference of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens Bob Brown…

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

January 8, 1991 – Peter Walsh versus a habitable planet (Walsh wins)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 8th, 1991, former Federal Treasurer Peter Walsh lets rip,

BACK in 1989 a proposal to spend $6 million on an Australian response to the greenhouse effect and climatic change was being considered. The 1990 Budget Papers identify another $17 million for climate change core research and “multifaceted programme initiatives” – which presumably includes funding various national and international greenhouse conferences so beloved by greenhouse activists.

Walsh, P. 1991. Credibility Gap in Greenhouse Gabfests. Australian Financial Review, 8 January, p.7.

BASED ON DALY GREENHOUSE TRAP

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the Hawke government’s Cabinet had, in October 1990 created the interim planning target of a 20% reduction in the CO2 emissions by 2005 with the notable caveats that it didn’t hurt the economy and that other nations took similar action, i.e., “we’re not going to do it.” And even these caveats were not enough for people like Walsh, who regarded environmentalism as akin to paganism, astrology, whatever. 

What’s interesting about this is that the column is based largely on a then-new book called The Greenhouse Trap by a guy called John Daly. So you see here the mechanics of how a book, even if basically self published, can get picked up and used in speeches and opinion columns and reverberate and become part of the actual or possible “common sense”, or certainly part of the acceptable range of opinions. Blah, blah, Overton Window, blah, blah – there’s a kind of conveyor belt going on.

What I think we can learn from this  is that Old White Men have a lot of cultural power, or at least influence.

What happened next

Walsh kept ranting –  February 23, 1993 – Peter Walsh spouting his tosh again – All Our Yesterdays

Walsh was involved in the dimbulb denialist outfit the Lavoisier Group, and Daly kept on being daily until he died in January 2004.

And the gab fests, as Walsh called them, became meaningless, principally because the United States insisted that targets and timetables not be included in the treaty text of the UN Convention.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

January 8, 2003 –  Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

January 8, 2013 –  Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

January 8, 2018 – Joe Root doesn’t come back to bat

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial

November 25, 2010 – GB Tucker dies

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 25th, 2010,

2010 GB Tucker dies, after writing a bunch of shite in the IPA Review after retirement (f.ex. November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue”)

In 1986, he was singing a different tune.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Tucker had written the 1981 monograph on C02. (LINK)

The specific context was that upon retiring from the CSIRO’s Atmospheric Physics division Tucker had written a couple of dodgy denialist articles for the Institute of Public Affairs. An ignominious end to what could have been a reasonable career.

What I think we can learn from this – 1) people get Relevance Deprivation Syndrome.  2) Education is no real protection against being spectacularly wrong.

What happened next – denialism continued, obvs.

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: 

November 25, 1968 – First atmospheric layers collection of carbon dioxide… – All Our Yesterdays

November 25, 1993 – House of Commons briefing on carbon taxes

November 25, 2000 – CoP meeting ends in official disarray…

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial United States of America

October 18, 1991 – American denialist in Australia….

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 18th, 1991,

Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar

Not his first rodeo…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that carbon dioxide build-up had broken through as an issue in 1988. By 1989 the George C Marshall Institute (set up to shill for Reagan’s Star Wars bullshit) had entered the fray and was enabling denialist efforts, alongside the Global Climate Coalition etc. Australia was one market for its shite.

Singer – Singer had been a semi-respected scientist and bureaucrat from the 1950s onward. But at some point he had jumped the shark. Here, he was fresh from warping the words of a dying Roger Revelle, who had known that many people did not think Singer was much of a scientist…

The specific context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was coming to an end and the moment of maximum danger – where the government might actually take on some of its recommendations – was about now. If you were going to bring out some idiot not very good scientist (as per Roger Revelle) now would be a good time. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this – evil people aren’t necessarily stupid or incompetent. (And conversely, the “good” guys aren’t all smart and competent.)

What happened next – The ESD got thrown in the bin by Paul Keating, who toppled Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke a couple of months later. The Tasman Institute kept up with the tours, economic modelling etc.

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: 

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

 June 10, 2015 – Abbott and Jones versus windfarms

Ten years ago, on this day, June 10th, 2015 soon to be ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott was being, well, Tony Abbott.

Bill Shorten accuses PM of hurting investment in renewables as Abbott says his government is working to reduce the number of ‘visually awful’ turbines

Tony Abbott finds windfarms visually awful and agrees they may have “potential health impacts”, and says the deal on the renewable energy target was designed to reduce their numbers as much as the current Senate would allow.

Speaking to the Sydney radio host Alan Jones – a long-term windfarm critic – the prime minister said: “I do take your point about the potential health impact of these things … when I’ve been up close to these windfarms not only are they visually awful but they make a lot of noise.

Taylor, L. 2015. Tony Abbott agrees windfarms may have ‘potential health impacts’. The Guardian, 10 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 403ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Tony Abbott is an idiot

The specific context was that Tony Abbott is an idiot and that his outriders and enablers are also idiots. Often they are smart, and have no excuse for what they did, beyond greed.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we choose the most idiotic to lead us (see the psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion on this).

As “active citizens” we should watch out for allowing idiots to lead us.

Academics might like to ponder – their role in puffing up idiots to lead us.

What happened next

xxx

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial United States of America

“Snowballs and morons and coal lumps, oh my”: on the hysterical materiality of old white men

Today some moronic Republican senator [Redundant adjective? Ed] brandished a lump of coal in the US Senate (thanks to Aaron for alerting me)

Via this Bluesky

This takes me back almost 20 years to the GE ‘clean coal’ advert (warning – utterly delirious).

And it takes me back to another cognitively-challenged Republican Senator [?? Ed], the late and unlamented James Inhofe who threw a snowball on the Senate Floor to ‘disprove’ global warming and rile the snowflake liberals, back in 2015.

A couple of years later, in the quarry-with-a-state-attached some people persist in calling “Australia”, the then-Treasurer (who would become Prime Minister), Scotty Morrison brandished a lump of coal in Parliament.  Some points to note: It was in the middle of a heatwave. He handed it on to one of the most absurd politicians of all time, Barnaby Joyce, who mimicked (?) wide-eyed joy at the gift.  The lump of dead matter (the coal, I mean) was provided by the Minerals Council of Australia, the industry lobby group that has done probably more than any other to stop meaningful climate action in Australia.  The lump was lacquered, so it wouldn’t smudge anyone’s hands – that’s the cleanest coal ever gets.

What’s going on here?  This isn’t just trolling, an effort to “own the libs,” and maintain the morale of Good Red Blooded Americans/Australians.  This is also, I suspect, some sort of desperate attempt to convince themselves of what they fear is a delusion, by having something material to hand.  The Marxists talk about (or used to – I don’t keep up with the jabber so much anymore) historical materialism.  This is more hysterical (2)  materiality.

Where will it all end? More of these stunts. More performative anti-nature nihilism. More asshole ambit claims.  O temperature, o mores.

See also

This blog post that I completely forgot I had written but says pretty much what I have said above.

Wind beneath their contempt

Petromasculinity 

Anti-reflexivity – see video

Footnotes

  1. David Brooks – the posterchild for overpromoted well-educated idiots – has written an entire kinda sorta mea culpa (but not really, because it is STILL the left’s fault) about ‘Where We Go From Here’ that manages to say not a single word about the climate (and ecological) debacle. Maybe if we pretend it isn’t there, or if we put our hands over our eyes, it isn’t there.  See also Dave Vetter’s review of the prosperity gospel for atheists book by Ezra Klein.
  2. I am alive to both the gendered and Fraudian aspects here, but idgaf for present purposes