The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 320ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists have been warning us. Then shouting. Then pleading. Also, lots of ordinary people who didn’t go to the right universities, don’t have the right qualifications.
The specific context was that there isn’t a specific context. This is just how it is going to be from now on. Except it will get worse, gradually and suddenly, suddenly and gradually, in fits and starts.
What I think we can learn from this is that this is just how it is going to be from now on. Except it will get worse, gradually and suddenly, suddenly and gradually, in fits and starts.
What happened next
The record hasn’t been broken. Yet. Watch this space.
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 13, 2004 – Bob Carr rallies states for emissions trading
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.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 the climate problem had become an issue at last in 1988. Between then and 1994 there had been the release of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report, the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and its ratification by enough nations (quite speedily) for it to become international law and for the first “Conference of the Parties” (COP) to be set up. It was due to meet in Berlin in March-April 1995.
The specific context was that there were still people knocking around wanting to emphasise the uncertainties in the “let’s not take action” direction (there are, as we have learnt to our cost, dangers of UNDERestimating impacts).
Also, there was a carbon tax proposal that was going to come to Keating’s Cabinet soon.
What I think we can learn from this – species be doomed.
What happened next – the emissions climbed, the atmospheric concentrations climbed, the temperatures climbed. Species be doomed.
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 27th, 2010,
Queensland has axed its funding for a cutting-edge 530-MW power plant that was to run on gasified coal and store 90% of its greenhouse gas emissions underground through the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, just weeks after the project was short-listed to receive additional support from the Australian federal government, it was revealed at the weekend
Cooper, M. (2010) Queensland government withdraws ZeroGen CCS project funding 27 December Platts International Coal Report
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 as per the post a few days ago, CCS had been an ongoing strand of technophilia in Australia, breaking through into public awareness in 2004.
The specific context was – Copenhagen had fallen over, the numbers weren’t adding up and everyone was pulling the plug.
What I think we can learn from this – these are literally pipe-dreams.
What happened next – the CCS soap opera continued, because our Lords and Masters have no other option. They couldn’t possibly question the hyperconsumerism they have foisted upon us all. We’re so 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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 23rd, 2010,
The world needs it, but strict budgets have forced Australia to scale back or cancel plans to advance the technology
BRISBANE, Australia — Environmental groups sounded the alarm when the government of the northeastern state of Queensland announced it would stop funding a zero-emissions power plant.
In those circles, rumors had been floating for weeks before the Dec. 19 decision that Queensland’s budget deficit-conscious premier and the coal companies were ready to pull the plug on the $4 billion ZeroGen plant.
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 from about 2004 Australian governments (federal and Queensland) had been bringing up CCS as a climate solution (god forbid we reduce emissions by, you know, leaving the coal and oil and gas in the ground and forging ahead with renewables).
The specific context was that for the the hype was hitting fever pitch.
What I think we can learn from this is that hype cycles are a thing.
What happened next – the plug got pulled on “Zerogen” days later. A separate failure of a CCS project, Gorgon, continues (failure at capturing and storing carbon – less of a failure at mitigation deterrence).
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.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, December 17th, 2000,
COMPANIES that produce greenhouse gas would have to buy permits to do so under plans outlined in a new report by the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO).
The report rejects proposals backed by business for permits to be handed out, arguing the idea would be inefficient and do little to protect jobs that are at risk from greenhouse gas reduction proposals.
Anon. 2000. Gas permit plan. Sunday Telegraph, December 17
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 fossil fuel interests had fought a very successful pair of campaigns against a carbon tax (1990-1 and 1994-5). A pissweak voluntary scheme, the “Greenhouse Challenge” had come into play in 1995, and the Howard government was content for this to keep going.
The specific context was that an emissions trading scheme proposal had been defeated, thanks to South Australian Liberal Senator Nick Minchin, in August 2000. But the pretence of action had to be maintained, for various reasons.
What I think we can learn from this – it is all kayfabe, all make-believe.
What happened next. Another proposal for an emissions trading scheme, supported by the entire Cabinet bar one person, came forward in mid-2003. That one person was Prime Minister John Howard, who vetoed it.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Fifty two years ago, on this day, December 14th, 1973, an article in the Canberra Times about the American writer Howard Wilcox warning of ice caps melting etc
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 330ppm. 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 warnings about polar melting had a long history. Various causes for the melting (natural and man-made) were being put forward.
The specific context was that Wilcox thought it was going to be the problem of “waste heat” rather than carbon dioxide build-up that caused the problem (he was not alone in thinking this, btw).
What I think we can learn from this – the phenomena can be disputed, the cause disputed. Lotsa disputes (because reality is confusing. “Science” remains though, a pretty good way of figuring out what is going on… Beats chicken entrails and wild guesses, anyway).
What happened next Wilcox wrote a book. It’s not very good.
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.
Thirty seven years ago, on this day, December 13th, 1988, a speech by the then Australian Environment Minister, the late Graham Richardson, in Washington at International Environment Forum, attacked James Balderstone, AMIC etc.
“Resource development and industrialisation, often unfettered, have been seen in the past as economic imperatives. But a lack of control and foresight has laid waste so much of the world that environment protection is now the economic imperative. Countries that are fouling their own nest, or allowing others to foul them, will struggle to survive.”
“Countries who protect their nests will be far better off. But with global problems like the greenhouse effect, that is only part of the picture. We now live in one big fairly dirty nest, and protecting other countries as well as our own, is the big economic imperative.”
See H Morgan Speech 4 May 1989 to ANU. “Exploration Access and political power
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. 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 – we had been through this rhetorical game back in the late 1960s – lots of fine words from politicians.
The specific context was that in 1988 we were at the beginning of another rhetorical game, which would stagger on to 1992. Also, Richardson was still on a sugar-rush after the November 1988 “Greenhouse 88” satellite link up.
What I think we can learn from this – that there was knowledge of what was at stake, all those decades ago.
What happened next
Morgan gave a speech six months later, May 4 1989, to ANU. “Exploration Access and political power.
Richardson tried to get ambitious carbon dioxide reduction targets through Hawke’s cabinet that same month, and got squished by then-Treasurer Paul Keating.
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.
The views of most of the attendees are in direct contradiction to the overwhelming majority of scientific research published over decades, as well as the positions of the world’s major scientific academies.
2016 Malcolm Roberts at CEI event http://reneweconomy.com.au/malcolm-roberts-joins-trumps-climate-deniers-fight-freedom-85911/
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. 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 … I can’t even. What a species. Anti-reflexivity etc etc.
The specific context was – the moronic Tony Abbott had recently been toppled by Malcolm Turnbull, who said climate change was a thing.
What I think we can learn from this – nothing. Or rather, that there is no science so proven that there won’t be chuckleheads out there displaying their wilful ignorance.
What happened next
Ah, I will let Wikipedia deal with this
On 27 October 2017, the full High Court, as the Court of Disputed Returns, ruled that Roberts had been ineligible to be elected to the Parliament. Roberts and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson subsequently announced that Roberts would nominate as a candidate for the electoral district of Ipswich at the 2017 Queensland state election.[18] He was not elected.[19] In February 2018, it was announced that Roberts would lead the One Nation Senate ticket in Queensland at the 2019 Australian federal election. Pauline Hanson said: “Malcolm Roberts has got the reputation as a powerhouse, the empirical science man, and he’s really taken it up to members of parliament”.[20]
In September 2017, before the High Court ruling on Roberts’s eligibility, blogger Tony Magrathea initiated a High Court action alleging that Roberts had sat in the Senate while disqualified, contrary to the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975. On 24 June 2019, the High Court found the allegation proved and ordered Roberts to pay a penalty of $6,000 to Magrathea.[21]
Re-election
With his citizenship clear, Roberts was elected to the Senate again in 2019.
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.
Fifty six years ago, on this day, December 11th, 1969, the Australian Prime Minister goes all tree-hugger.
In concerning ourselves as a people with what makes for a more satisfying life, we have to admit that we are mostly only vaguely interested in what is happening to our environment, and what is more important what, indeed, we are doing to it. The sins of commission, I think are perhaps as great as the sins of omission. We all of us as citizens pollute the very air we breathe, we savage our unique wildlife with little shame, we slay our fellows on the roads with monstrous carelessness and we accept the congestion of our cities as though urban sprawl was the fault of somebody else. We blame everybody but ourselves for the grey areas in our daily lives.
11th December 1969 – Gorton comments on page 15 of William Queale lecture
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 Australia had been invaded in the late 18th century. Sorry “settled” for “progress” and “Enlightenment” etc etc. The ecological impacts, along with the devastating social ones, had been profound, in terms of extinctions, topsoil loss, invasive species etc etc etc.
The specific context was there was a growing awareness, in the late 1960s, of all the damage being done. This was the era when “Conservation” was respectable and before so-called Conservative parties had swallowed the neoliberal Kool-Aid.
One is reminded also of comments RFK Snr made about GDP the previous year…
What I think we can learn from this- there was a time when politicians at least acknowledged tensions between growth and environment. Now it’s all hidden under eco-modernist muck.
What happened next – a couple of years later the pressure had grown so much that a Department of the Environment was created. Now THAT’S what I call success…
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.
