Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Netherlands Uncategorized

July 22, 1991 – two #climate idiots on the Science Show

Thirty two years ago, on this day, July 22, 1991, the Australian radio program “The Science Show” (ABC Radio) had two climate denialists on. Oh joy.

(See Robyn Williams letter to The Australian, 1991, Dec 6, p.10).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Science Show had from its very beginnings been aware of the dangers of climate change. So Ritchie Caleer, who had been writing about the problem emphatically since the late 60s (and had been aware of it since the early 1950s), was a guest in 1975 on the first episode.

In 1991, the politics of it national of climate, internationally and nationally were getting hot. The negotiations for a climate treaty to be signed in June of 92 were going nowhere thanks to the resolute intransigence and blocking of the United States administration. 

Meanwhile, in Australia, the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process was reaching its final stages, drafts were being written ahead of release within a couple of months. I don’t know if the Science Show had pro-climate action guests the week before the week after. But on this occasion, they had two idiots. One was Bill Nirenberg, one of the Jasons who you can read about in Merchants of Doubt. He had helped to write the 1983 NAS “changing climate” report, saying, “Oh, it’ll be long term and there’s nothing we can do anyway.” The other guest was Brian O’Brien, one of the more active climate deniers on the Australian scene. He was able to play on the fact that he had been the scientist for NASA, as if this somehow gave him expertise on climate science. O’Brian had written various screeds about climate policy, especially attacking the “Toronto Target”.

What I think we can learn from this is that even the best media has to allow dodgy people on because if you don’t, it is “censorship”. And especially 31 years ago, there was still need to “hear both sides of the argument.” And to be fair, I don’t know how Robyn Williams dealt with that at the time, maybe he did a very good job of sending a public health warning to listeners. 

What happened next

The ecologically sustainable development process was killed off by new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating and his henchmen within the Australian Federal bureaucracy. The Rio Earth Summit, rubberstamped a piss-weak climate treaty, i.e. the Americans won. And in long term, everybody lost. 

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

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change

A hundred and eleven years ago, on this day, July 17, 1912, the New South Wales Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal ran a clipping (based on a Popular Mechanics article, about “Coal Consumption Affecting Climate.”) https://www.braidwoodtimes.com.au/story/3848574/old-news-goes-viral/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 301ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

This is one of those delicious findings that yes, people were thinking about possible consequences of all the coal- this is in the afterlife of the Arrhenius and Chamberlain. But of course, the scientists had stopped looking because, thanks to Angstrom, they had convinced themselves that carbon dioxide was quickly saturated, and therefore irrelevant to any heating effect. And it was all about the water vapour. 

So this finding is the sort of thing that you find on the internet and occasionally it gets sent to me as somehow proof that “everybody knew.” But I really do strongly believe that before Plass and Keeling it was entirely understandable to be deeply skeptical about the link, and even with Plass and Keeling and so forth it’s really only the late 1970s onwards that you can start to think about putting people on trial at The Hague for crimes against humanity. I know that’s convenient, because it is at that point that we get eight years of neoliberals blocking before the ‘breathrough’ in mid-1988.  But anyway, I digress. 

What I think we can learn from this

The idea had been ‘in the air’ for a while..

What happened next

Nothing, because the science was most definitely not settled…

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

July 16, 1990 – Canberra Times gives denialist tosh a platform

Thirty three years ago, on this day, July 16, 1990, the asinine comments of Hugh Morgan, culture warrior and businessman, are reported in the Canberra Times

 ADELAIDE: Western Mining chief Hugh Morgan has criticised the former Minister for the Environment, Graham Richardson, and the scientific community for treating the greenhouse theory as fact rather than hypothesis.

Mr Morgan told an Australian Institute of Energy conference dinner on Monday [16th July] that he was concerned at the way in which some scientists and Senator Richardson expounded the theory as if it were truth.

1990 Anon. 1990. Public ‘unaware’ of alternative scientific theories on greenhouse effect. Canberra Times, 18 July, p. 6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that having won the Federal election in March of that year, the Labour Party was having to follow through on promises to the environmentalists about a so-called “ecologically sustainable development process.” Hugh Morgan, who probably felt the Liberals and Nationals had been robbed, was predictably furious, and predictably spouting his climate denial bollocks, saying that there were alternative theories. This was a common proposal at the time and still is. Morgan’s “alternative theories” being possible somewhat like Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts”. 

There is that letter from Guy Callendar to (I think) Gilbert Plass about people being able to criticise theories, but it’s very hard to come up with a good one. And there is also the editorial in Climatic Change by John Eddy, where he cites Kipling’s poem, In the Neolithic Age – “nine and 60 ways to calculate the tribal lays and every one of them is right.” 

But that’s not what Morgan is saying. Morgan is saying that he’s gonna shop around until he finds a “theory” that allows us to keep burning coal and the oil and the gas and spitting on and shitting on the environmentalists. That’s what Morgan means by “alternative theories.”

What I think we can learn from this

Brittle old white men are bad for your health. And your planet’s health, at that.

What happened next

The ecologically sustainable development process did indeed start. Morgan kept funding denialist efforts including his consigliere Ray Evans and all the other Goon Squad types who have made the Australian response to climate change change so shameful and wasteful.

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

July 14, 2000 – Miners versus the ALP/ and climate action

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 14, 2000, the tensions any social democratic party faces were out in open…

A split is emerging between the main coal mining union and the ALP over Labor’s pledge to take early action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The ALP’s draft environment policy, released last week, calls for the introduction of a national carbon credit trading scheme ahead of any international trade system introduced under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN treaty limiting developed countries’ emissions of greenhouse gases.

But the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union is worried about the impact of the early introduction of such a scheme on the economy and employment particularly in energy-intensive sectors.

Hordern, N. 2000. Miners unhappy with Labor’s greenhouse pledge. The Australian Financial Review, 14 July, p.12.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some folks within the ALP were trying to turn climate change into an issue, a bit at least, as a stick to beat Howard with. But it wasn’t easy…

What I think we can learn from this is that climate change is an extremely difficult issue to build red-green coalitions on, for multiple reasons.

What happened next

Howard won the 2001 Federal Election, thanks to vicious lies about Afghan refugees. And got another six years to delay and prevent climate action.

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

July 13, 2013 – future Australian PM ridiculed for #climate idiocy

Ten years ago, on this day, July 13, 2013, the Australian satirical website “The Shovel” took aim at Tony Abbott, who was about to become Prime Minister… It’s still hilarious, if with a tinge of horror.

http://www.theshovel.com.au/2013/07/16/invisible-things-are-ridiculous-says-man-who-lives-his-life-according-to-invisible-thing

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Abbott was clearly about to become prime minister. And he was clearly still spouting his bollocks, that because carbon dioxide was invisible, it therefore somehow didn’t have any significance. So the Australian satirical publication, The Shovel, decided to tear him a new one. And it’s a corker. 

What I think we can learn from this

Laughter is solace

What happened next 

Well, Peter Cook said, “I love satire, I love how it stopped Nazis.” Abbott became one of the worst Australian Prime Ministers to date (and there’s stiff competition). So, obviously, since then, we’ve had do-nothing Malcolm Turnbull, and fuck things up with a smirk on your face. Scott Morrison, him of the multiple portfolios. And now “Albo”…

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

July 10, 2010 – Rio Tinto amplifies the message…

Thirteen years ago, on this day, July 10, 2010, the CEO of mining giant Rio Tinto was talking about what politicians could learn about the recent dumping of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who had been campaigning for a mining super-tax

 “Policy-makers around the world can learn a lesson when considering a new tax to plug a revenue gap, or play to local politics.” Rio Tinto CEO Tom Albanese, one week after Labor dumped Prime Minister Rudd and the super-profits tax. Cleary, P. (2011) page 80

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Rio Tinto and other companies, multinational and national, had just spent a LOT of money on television and newspaper adverts and lobbying to defeat a mining tax proposed by wounded Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Rudd had been dumped by his own party but not for mining tax reasons, simply because he was unbearable, and his staunchly loyal deputy Julia Gillard had finally had enough. 

What I think we can learn from this is that after you spend all that money, you want to send a message to any other politician, warning them of what’s going to happen so that you don’t have to spend the same  amount of money again, it’s the equivalent of hanging someone’s executed body on a gibbet with a sign that says “fuck around and find out.”

What happened next  a minimal mining tax was negotiated by the Gillard government that clearly did not have the political capital or appetite for a fight. And the mining companies kept making money hand over fist and the Australian taxpayer continues to get shafted. Because Australia is basically a quarry with a wholly-owned subsidiary 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.

Categories
Australia

 July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 7, 2008, the Liberal Party in Australia, perhaps bewildered to be in Opposition, started backtracking from the (pissweak) commitments it had taken to the 2007 Federal election.

THE Coalition split over climate change policy is growing, with Brendan Nelson refusing to embrace publicly the policy he has agreed to in private with senior colleagues.

Dr Nelson refused again yesterday to state simply that the Coalition supported the introduction of an emissions trading scheme regardless of whether the world’s major polluters were also prepared to act.

While taking an increasingly sceptical line towards climate change, the Opposition Leader denied there was an internal split over policy, claiming instead that it was “a question of emphasis”.

But he is falling foul of senior colleagues including the deputy leader Julie Bishop, the shadow treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull, and the environment spokesman, Greg Hunt.

Until this week the Coalition policy was to introduce a domestic emissions trading scheme no later than 2012.

On Monday [7 July] Dr Nelson walked away from that, saying nothing should be done until major polluters such as China and India were also committed, otherwise it would be economic suicide.

Coorey, P. 2008. Party lurches as Nelson shifts climate course. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 July

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Brendan Nelson had become leader of the Liberals after John Howard had lost his seat in the 2007 election. Let’s say that again. John Howard lost his seat in the 2007. Election. Nelson was by this time finding it pretty hard to square the circle because many Liberal MPs and especially National Party MPs, (the party the Liberals were in coalition with) did not like the idea that the hippies had been right and that greenhouse gases were something to worry about. And he was finding it hard to square the circle. And by this time, he must have known that Malcolm Turnbul, the ambitious  merchant wanker was circling, wanting the top job. 

What I think we can learn from this is that climate change is driving us mad both as individuals but also as organisations. It is an impossible object, a bit like what Captain Picard wanted to implant in the captured Borg in that episode of Star Trek. It is simply driving everyone mad because to use an old Marxist bit of jargon, “the contradictions” cannot be contained and papered over indefinitely.

What happened next is that Turnbull knifed Nelson, tried to bring the Liberals along with climate policy, was left swinging by Kevin Rudd, was then toppled and took everyone by surprise. Tony Abbott became opposition leader. Turnbull eventually toppled Abbott as Prime Minister in 2015. Yes, this is a soap opera. And then Turnbull was himself toppled as Prime Minister. And one of the people who voted against him in that leadership contest mentioned, Brendan Nelson The writers of the soap opera have clearly been paying attention to the back catalogue, and taking way too much acid.

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

July 6, 1993 – Australian bipartisanship on climate? Not really…

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 6, 1993, the Canberra Times reported on how everyone had a beef with the Keating government on climate…

The agreement between Commonwealth and state and territory governments on broad environmental issues was widely criticised yesterday by both sides of the debate during an environmental law conference in Canberra

The chief protagonists were Phillip Toyne, former chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation and now Visiting Fellow at the ANU’s Centre for Environment law, and Dr Brian O’Brien, a Penh based consultant and physicist and former chairman of the WA Environmental Protection Authority. 

1993 Campbell, R. 1993. Both sides criticise green agreement. Canberra Times, 6 July, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Labour government of Paul Keating had just won the “unwinnable” election of 1993, despite the economy having been in the toilet. The ALP had been silent on the greenhouse issue, as had the Liberals, and the concern of 1988-1991 a distant memory.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can have two people attacking a government from “opposite perspectives” (so Toyne is a greenie and O’Brien as “nothing to see here everything is okay” kind of guy) but that doesn’t mean that the government is right. It can simply mean, as it does in this case, that one lot of critics are simply wrong. 

But we so often take triangulation as the safest course. And of course, “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.”

What happened next

Toyne ended up as a civil servant, albeit briefly, trying to get a carbon tax through. O’Brien kept trading on his time with NASA. And being an ass. 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

4 July, 1957 – popular UK magazine The  Listener mentions carbon dioxide build-up

On this day in 1957, Sir Edward Appleton makes a passing reference to the possibility of climate change in an article about the International Geophysical Year in the magazine The Listener  – “For we do know this: that more carbon dioxide should help the atmosphere to trap more heat from the sun”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that the International Geophysical Year was just beginning, and the BBC had just broadcast “The Restless Sphere”, hosted by Prince Philip. Meanwhile, in April the New Scientist had run a brief story on carbon dioxide.

What we can learn is that we knew enough to be worried, and to set up a proper watching brief. We didn’t.

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 Coal

July 3, 2008 – Greenpeace occupies an Australian coal plant.

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 3, 2008, Greenpeace occupied Australia’s most polluting coal-fired power plant

“At dawn on July 3, 2008, 27 Greenpeace activists entered the 2,640 megawatts Eraring Power Station site north of Sydney to call for an energy revolution and take direct action to stop coal from being burnt. Twelve protesters shut down and chained themselves to conveyors while others climbed onto the roof to paint ‘Revolution’ and unfurled a banner reading ‘Energy Revolution – Renewables Not Coal’. The action preceded the Australian government’s climate change advisor Professor Ross Garnaut’s delivery of his Draft Climate Change Review on July 4. Police arrested 27.”

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 new Rudd Government had appointed economist Ross Garnaut to look at climate economics, and was also appointing other panels, there was going to be a lot of green papers and white papers and speeches. What Greenpeace were, quite rightly, saying is, well, if these speeches and policy papers don’t accelerate the closure of coal-fired monstrosities – death factories in James Hansen’s term – then they’re not worth that much. 

What I think we can learn from this

It’s so difficult for an NGO, or any set of NGOs really, to be both trying to engage in the finer points of policy and simultaneously making broader societal points. Because if you go out and do the radical stuff, you’ll find yourself uninvited and disinvited to the policy roundtables, or not taken seriously when you make serious points. All the more reason why you need a very broad-based, well-funded, set of organizations within a movement and that that movement has ways of discussing what counts as “selling out,” being caught up to being a fig leaf, and what counts as constructive engagement. And there’s never going to be the final solid answer and there will always be people who disagree. 

As of 2022, Eraring is still pumping out its death, but it is scheduled for final closure shortly.

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.