Category: Carbon Pricing

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 9, 1999 – The Australia Institute calls for emissions trading

Twenty-six years ago, on this day, August 9, 1999, the Australian Financial Review deigned to cover climate change…

The introduction of a domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme could generate $7 billion in annual revenue, enabling government to cut the company tax rate to 30 per cent, abolish accelerated depreciation and reduce payroll tax by 60 per cent, according to a paper by the Australia Institute.

“Emissions trading has the potential to become an important tool in environmental protection and economic and fiscal management,” the institute’s Mr Clive Hamilton and Mr Hal Turton say in their paper Business Tax and the Environment Emissions trading as a tax reform option, released last week.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Emissions trading call `half-baked’. The Australian Financial Review, 9 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. 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 putting a price on things you don’t like, to encourage decreased use (cigarettes, anyone?) is hardly controversial, especially if you’re going to use money raised to explore alternatives.
Or rather, it is VERY controversial to those people currently making money and wanting that to continue. Two carbon tax proposals had been defeated already, and attention therefore switched to “emissions trading schemes.”

The specific context was that Australia had signed (but not ratified) the Kyoto Protocol, and so ways and means to ‘reduce’ Australia’s emissions (it had a 108% target!) were being investigated, not just by The Australia Institute but also other outfits.

What I think we can learn from this – the simplest and in some ways least significant actions turned out to be, well, impossible.

What happened next – Prime Minister John Howard killed off two proposals for Emissions Trading Schemes, in 2000 and 2003. States got interested in doing a “ground-up” scheme among various states. This never really got off the ground, before action turned back to the Federal level in 2006-7.

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: 

August 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Academia Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, August 5th, 1997 – Clive Hamilton, founder of the Australia Institute,

“Climate Change Policies in Australia: A briefing to a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate”, Bonn, Germany, 5th August 1997

The Government’s position has been bolstered by economic modelling analysis that purports to show that Australia would be especially hard hit. It is projected that wages in Australia will be 19% lower by 2020 under a scenario that reduces emissions by 10% below 1990 levels in 2020. It is also claimed that the economic cost for each Australian would be 22 times higher than for each European. These extraordinary claims have been challenged by many experts including 131 Australian academic economists who signed a statement declaring that policies are available to slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia.
It is also apparent that the modelling results have been presented in ways that are highly misleading. Despite the fact that the model is constructed in a way that exaggerates the impact of emissions reductions on the Australian economy, the results actually show that the impact would be extremely small.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 UNFCCC had been agreed in 1992, but the text did NOT include targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. Why not? Because UNCLE SAM SAID SO THAT’S WHY NOT YOU PINKO TREE-HUGGER.

(i.e. the people around George Bush Snr defeated the “pro-action” forces). So in 1995, the “Berlin Mandate” had been agreed – rich countries would have to come to the 3rd meeting in 1997, with plans/commitments to cut their emissions.

The specific context was that the Australian government of Paul Keating had been deeply reluctant, and once there was a switch to John Howard, the anti-action work had turbocharged. This briefing came during a “charm” (sic) offensive by Howard’s people, trying to get a special deal for Australia. Clive Hamilton, who had set up the Australia Institute three years earlier, was not amused.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian political and economic elite are, of course, criminally incompetent when it comes to a host of issues. But especially climate…

What happened next – Howard succeeded in getting that extremely generous deal at Kyoto. Then STILL didn’t ratify it, on general (lack of) principle.

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: 

August 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens – All Our Yesterdays

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 25, 2008 – More economic “modelling” against an emissions trading scheme

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2008 the “sky will fall if we do anything to reduce emissions and here is some economic modelling to ‘prove’ it” bullshit continued, as the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) release ACIL Tasman modelling, which of course gets uncritical splashes in the Murdoch press.

At the same time, will-be Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull joins then-Liberal leader Brendan Nelson in saying “delay the implementation of an emissions trading scheme.”

Federal opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has fallen into step behind his leader, declaring an emission trading scheme shouldn’t be introduced until it is in Australia’s interest.

In government, the coalition supported a start date of 2012, but earlier this week leader Brendan Nelson indicated it would reject the legislation until big polluting countries agreed to reduce their emissions.

Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister, had steadfastly supported a 2012 start date – until now.

“An emissions trading scheme shouldn’t start until it is ready and until it is in Australia’s interest for it to start,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio.

“The government is definitely rushing this, 2010 is far too soon.”

AAP, 2008. Govt ‘rushing’ carbon trading: Turnbull. AAP, 25 July. 

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 the use of “independent” economic modelling to say that any emissions reductions efforts would lead directly to Stone Age cannibalism was a favoured tactic of the incumbents (why change a game that had been winning since the early 1990s?).

The specific context was John Howard, who had killed off two Emissions Trading Scheme proposals brought to Cabinet in 2000 and 2003 had been forced into a u-turn in late 2006. The next Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had said he’d bring an ETS in, and various incumbent outfits were trying to delay the start date, while also creating all sorts of loopholes and give-aways.

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of policy always have fall-back positions. If they can’t stop something in the short-term, they’ll try to soften the blows. This also means that the policy will probably be less effective and easier to reverse in future. A nice little ancillary benefit…

What happened next – Rudd, and his underling Penny Wong, continued to give ground and give ground. Eventually Rudd’s CPRS scheme failed to get through parliament, thanks to new opposition leader Tony Abbott. Rather than call a double-dissolution election, the spineless Rudd pivoted, and tanked his credibility and popularity, which had remained inexplicably high until that point. All this led indirectly to serious blood-letting and bed-wetting. The Australian Labor Party learned all the wrong lessons, and is now just the PR mouthpiece and stabvest for the mining sector. Oh well, so it goes.

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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 24, 2011 – Rubbery numbers about Gillard’s carbon pricing proposal are disputed…

On this day 14 years ago, the trade publication Australian Mining ran the following – 

Climate change groups have dismissed the anti-carbon tax ad blitz launched on Sunday, and its ‘shaky numbers’.

Industry groups came together as the Australian Trade Industry Alliance (ATIA) to create an ad campaign to derail the Government’s carbon pricing scheme, NineMSN reports.

In the ads, ATIA says only $4.9 billion was generated in Europe over the first six and half year by a carbon tax, as compared to a potential $71 billion over the period in Australia.

The Climate Institute have hit out at the advertisement, saying neither the alliance nor its figures, should be believed.

Not only was the $71 billion amount $10 billion off, but the campaign failed to mention that over six years Europe will generate $143 billion, the group said.

“This new industry alliance is just another shady front group with more shaky numbers as they argue for more delay, exemptions or special treatments,” the institute’s John Connor stated.

Anti-carbon tax ads slammed – Australian Mining

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 Australian political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up repeatedly. A carbon tax had been mooted in 1989, and fierce battles against it fought, especially in 1994-5. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard had defeated various emissions trading schemes, but eventually the tide turned and from 2007 onwards the political and economic elites had been wrangling. Kevin Rudd had comprehensively failed and his assassin/replacement Julia Gillard had hoped to kick the issue into the long grass, but parliamentary arithmetic did not allow (i.e. her government relied upon Greens and pro-climate action independents).

The specific context was that Gillard had announced the details of the scheme, and of course a huge anti- campaign had begun…

What I think we can learn from this is that even the mildest of actions are not acceptable to those who really run the show.

What happened next was that Gillard’s legislation got through (she had a remarkable record, btw, of getting legislation through).  But the carbon pricing scheme was then abolished by the next PM, a thug by the name of Tony Abbott, whose down party found him unacceptable a little over a year after that.

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: 

July 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 12, 2011 – Tony Abbott and the The Australia Institute

Fourteen years ago, on this day, July 12th, 2011, 

The whole purpose of the carbon tax is to phase out the coal industry…. Now, I think that the coal industry is the foundation of a modern economy. I think that affordable power is essential to Australia’s economic future. I don’t want to close down the coal industry… the Government’s own figures they say that coal will go from 80 percent of our power generation to 10 percent or 25 percent, if you include clean coal using various forms of sequestration. So, the Government’s own figures involve a radical downsizing and ultimate demise of the coal industry (emphasis added Abbott,2011a).

T.,Abbott, 2011a.Transcript of joint doorstop interview:Dandenong South, Victoria, 12 July:JuliaGillard’scarbontax. 〈http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/down load/media/pressrel/922506/upload_binary/922506.pdf〉.

And

12 July 2011: Australia Institute publishes a detailed analysis of direct action and building on past schemes suggests around $100 billion would be needed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. 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 Liberal Party, after a brief flirtation with competing for small-g green votes in 1990, had decided to stick with their mining mates and the culture war (unlike Labor, which wants to stick with its mining mates while NOT having a culture war).

The specific context was that from late 2006 the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide became “mainstreamed” (after long long resistance). But in late 2009 Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader, and ended that fragile consensus. He used carbon pricing as a scare campaign about the “great big tax on everything” on his way to become Prime Minister.

What I think we can learn from this is that political parties are not meritocracies around intelligence, integrity or vision. They are bear pits, where the most vicious and determined rise to the top.

What happened next. Abbott became Prime Minister (god help us) and abolished the (inadequate) carbon pricing scheme that Julia Gillard had managed to push through. And the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Up and up and up of course.

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: 

July 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 6, 2008 – Southern Cross Coalition launches “towards an effective and fair response to climate change”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, July 6th, 2008 the grandly-named Southern Cross Coalition publishes ‘Towards an effective and fair response to climate change.”

(SMH Paywalled article)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  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 there had been various attempts to build civil society/social movement coalitions around environment (so called “red-green” coalitions) dating back to the 1970s (the somewhat mythologised ‘green bans’ etc).  One of the problems was that civil society is pretty thin and captured-by-parties in Australia (though I am not quite sure what my comparative metrics are, tbh).  By 2008 it was obvious that Labor could not be trusted (!) to deliver strong action. 

The specific context was that almost as soon as he took office in late November 2007, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd started massaging expectations of actual action down down down (e.g. refusing to budge on pitiful emissions reductions targets) and anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see there was trouble ahead…

And the SCCC? the Climate Institute, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Council of Social Service, and Australian Council of Trade Unions.

What I think we can learn from this – politicians – especially Australian politicians – have now got a full generation and a bit (37 years) of abject failure on climate change.  Back then, it was only 20 years…The only thing that might have saved us was sustained, non-co-optable social movement organisations that then brought broader civil society into the fray. But that was a fantasy then, and we don’t have a time machine now. We are sooooo screwed.

What happened next The so-called “Southern cross coalition” – dominated as it was by extremely timid reformist outfits, pissed off other groups within the “coalition” by doing a stitch up with Rudd the following year in April over a “better” target for the CPRS legislation.

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: 

July 6, 1972 – “Workers and the Environment” conference in London…

July 6, 1988 – Piper Alpha blows up 

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 4, 2008 – Garnaut’s draft report released

Seventeen years ago, on this day, July 4th, 2008, economist Ross Garnaut’s draft report about what to do about Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions is released.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  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 Australian political elites had made various noises about putting a price on carbon dioxide (a real no-brainer, while still being a drastically inadequate response to the problem) since 1989 (you could say earlier, if you were being particularly uncharitable).  Liberal Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007) had twice had proposals to Cabinet for an emissions trading scheme. One of his underlings had scuppered the first, in 2000, and he himself had vetoed the second in 2003.

The specific context was that in late 2006 public pressure had meant Howard needed to do a U-turn.  In 2007 new Labor leader Kevin Rudd had asked establishment economist Ross Garnaut to produce a report on carbon pricing…

What I think we can learn from this  is that elites – and perhaps especially the Australian political “elite”- have been failing for a very very long time.

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

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

July 4, 1989 – UK Energy Committee ponders greenhouse implications – All Our Yesterdays

July 4, 1996 – article in Nature saying ‘it’s partly us’

July 4, 2004 – @WWF_Australia try to shame John Howard into #climate action…

Categories
Australia Business Responses Carbon Pricing

June 3, 1996 – Business Council of Australia versus even the idea of a carbon tax

On this day June 3, 1996, 29 years ago, the peak business body in the settler colony known as Australia wanted to nail yet another nail in the coffin of the carbon tax proposal that had been defeated in February 1995.

THE Business Council of Australia has asked the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics to update research conducted last year on the regional impact…

Strickland, K. 1996  Call for revision of carbon tax’s impact. The Australian, June 3, p.031

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm.  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 for this was that business was busy winning all the big policy battles, but still feared that climate action might impact their profits. Internationally, the Berlin COP had ended with a “Berlin Mandate” meaning rich nations (including Australia) were going to be expected to present plans for carbon dioxide reductions by the third COP.

The specific context was the new Liberal National Party government of John Howard was even more business-friendly and climate-action-blocking than that of the ALP’s Paul Keating. But you never know, issues can come back – especially with COP2 about to take place in Geneva – and the Business Council is here just laying down some suppressing fire.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – business interests do not care about the actual future.

As “active citizens – business interests know how to keep governments on a leash, and they rarely get sloppy/complacent.

Academics might want to ponder – their role as handmaidens to this system.

What happened next: Howard came out swinging hard against both international and national commitments. He did not get punished by the Great Australian Electorate for these acts of bastardy until 2007.

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

Stuff on ABARE

Stuff on John Howard

(use the search function!)

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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 3, 1970 – US Senator suggests World Ecology Unit – All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 1989 – Liberal Party to outflank Labor on #climate?!

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Categories
Carbon Pricing United Kingdom

June 1, 1989 – Tony Blair versus carbon pricing

On this day June 1, 1989, 36 years ago – the UK Labour party’s energy spokesman, a young ambitious MP called Tony Blair, was reported to have spoken out against a carbon tax, on the front page of the Independent.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm.  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 for this was scientists had been warning politicians for a good 10 years (longer in some places) about carbon dioxide build-up.

The specific context was that in September 1988 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had given a pivotal speech to the Royal Society in London, saying the Greenhouse Effect was indeed here. In May 1989 Blair had already spoken out saying that market forces might not be able to solve the problem. Now he was willing to say state action wouldn’t work. Anything for a headline, whatever nonsense suited the moment. Blair only was consistent when waging class wars and, er, real wars.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – the solutions to the problem were unpalatable, and because we turned from them then, well, we are now quite fubarred.

As “active citizens” – politicians in opposition oppose – no matter what is being proposed might have some merit – their need is to oppose. It’s all kayfabe.

Academics might want to ponder their complicity in this kayfabe.

What happened next: The tax idea tanked (it’s probably that its opponents within the Civil Service and Government had leaked it to help win their battle). Eventually carbon pricing did come into existence, if not to meaningful effect.

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

Tony Blair and the loong history…

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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 1, 1969 – “The Future is a Cruel Hoax” Commencement address – All Our Yesterdays

June 1, 1965 – Tom Lehrer warns “don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air”

June 1, 1992 – “environmental extremists” want to shut down the United States, says President Bush

June 1, 2011 – Japanese office workers into short sleeves to save the planet

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

May 14, 2009 – First bite at the CPRS apple

Sixteen years ago, on this day, May 14th, 2009 the first Australian ETS legislation introduced into Parliament:

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 is introduced into the House of Representatives.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been proposals to put a price on carbon dioxide via a tax in the early 1990s. Both had been defeated by coalitions of actors coordinated by the Business Council of Australia and what became the Minerals Council of Australia. There had been an effort by state Premiers to stitch together a “bottom-up” emissions trading scheme after it became clear that the Federal Government would not implement one (Prime Minister John Howard personally vetoed a proposal supported by the rest of his Cabinet in 2003). Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of the ALP had come to power promising climate action. Now, at last, he was introducing some deeply shitty legislation that was basically a do-as-little-as-possible-while-keeping-big-business-happy scheme. He expected it to fail the first time round, and he wasn’t disappointed.

What I think we can learn from this

Play games with the fate of the earth and don’t be surprised when it blows up in your face and people realise you are a hollow wanker. Rudd was the worst Prime Minister Australia had had for a while, imo. But then came Abbott and Morrison…

What happened next the CPRS got reintroduced as legislation in November 2009, and fell, because the Opposition toppled its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and replaced him with an inadequate knuckle dragger called Tony Abbott. Oh god, what a horrorshow. What a soap opera scripted and directed by David Lynch, Salvador Dali and Satan.

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 14, 1979 – The greenhouse effect is … “almost common knowledge” – All Our Yesterdays

May 14, 2007 – another C40 large cities summit – All Our Yesterdays

May 14, 2002 – well-connected denialists gather in Washington DC to spout #climate nonsense

May 14, 2010 – a day of action/mourning on climate