The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 Greenpeace had been doing this sort of stuff since its very beginnings in the early 1970s.
The specific context was that “global society” was in one of its periodic 3 year periods where elites had to pretend to care about climate change (see also 1988-1992, 2006-2009, 2018-2020). Greenpeace had a “Quit Coal” campaign ahead of the COP meeting in Poznan, Poland.
What I think we can learn from this is that these sorts of stunts “work” on several levels, but don’t on a broader level – to paraphrase “you can’t climb onboard a social relationship.”
What happened next – Greenpeace kept going with this tactic, but the Arctic Sunrise – where they tried it out versus the Russians – gave them pause for thought.
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 years ago, on this day, September 26th, 1995,
Senator Cook opens CRC that “will help maintain Australia’s export coal trade in an increasingly competitive and environmentally sensitive international market”
Cook, P. 1995 Black coal goes green at new Cooperative Research Centre.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 become the world’s biggest coal exporter in 1984, and Australian politicians had been trying to “square the circle” with environment concerns since the late 1980s. See for example Bob Hawke in January 1989.
The specific context was that there were various research institutions happy to relieve the taxpayer of cash – god forbid industry fund research and development in a meaningful way…
What I think we can learn from this is that the taxpayer is always on the hook.
What happened next “Clean Coal”? Yeah, like dry water.
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 Bracks Government will put at stake its environmental credentials in the lead up to next year’s State election if it allows Hazelwood power station to expand, green groups have warned.
The call comes as groups rally – around a three-storey inflatable cooling tower – at the steps of Treasury Place, where Cabinet is meeting today to finalise the proposed expansion of Hazelwood.
According to reports, the Government has signed a deal with Hazelwood, the developed world’s most polluting power station, which would cap its climate change pollution at 445 million tonnes over 25 years. If these reports are correct this deal would:
* renege on the Government’s earlier assurances that it would require reductions in Hazelwood’s pollution; * allow Hazelwood to continue operating at current emissions levels, which are the worst in Australia and among the worst in the world; * effectively provide a $16.7 billion subsidy over 25 years from the public purse, based on current European Union figures, if this emissions cap is protected from a future emissions trading scheme; and * give Hazelwood a licence to continue operating – and polluting – well beyond 2030 and provide no guarantee when the power station will shut down.
Environment Victoria’s Executive Director Marcus Godinho said if this report was correct it would be a dirty deal: “Hazelwood is the number one test for the Bracks Government. An expansion will mean failure, which will be felt at the ballot box. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this decision for the future of the environment, as well as our economy and jobs. An expansion would annihilate the Government’s environmental credibility.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions, from truly filthy brown coal, were high. In 1989 the State Electricity Commission Victoria released a report about what to do about Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We will never know what might have happened (probably not much, tbf) because the SECV got privatised
The specific context was that green groups had been plugging away, without too much sniff of victory, for a very long time.
What I think we can learn from this – we should celebrate the tenacity of the resistance, I guess? While not letting it off the hook for lack of innovation, reflexivity etc.
What happened next
According to wikipedia:
“In 2005, the Bracks government approved an environmental effects statement (EES) that allowed Hazelwood to relocate a road and a section of the Morwell River to allow access to an additional 43 million tonnes of coal in addition to that allowed under the mining licence boundaries set at the time of privatisation. This was estimated to provide sufficient coal for the plant to operate to at least 2030 (prior to decommissioning plans)….
Hazelwood was jointly owned by Engie with a 72% share and Mitsui & Co with a 28% share.[4] In 2014, Hazelwood employed 495 staff directly and on average 300 contractors. On 3 November 2016, Engie announced that the entire Hazelwood plant would be closed at the end of March 2017 giving five months notice of the closure.[5][6] The power station closed in March 2017.[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.
Twenty four years ago, on this day, July 2nd, 2001,
NRDC Blasts Bush Plan to Increase Reliance on Coal; Group Says Increased Coal Burning Will Accelerate Global Warming
WASHINGTON (July 2, 2001) – Responding to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham’s appearance today at a groundbreaking ceremony for a new Kentucky coal power plant, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) blasted the Bush administration for its plan to increase U.S. reliance on coal to generate electricity.
“The Bush administration wants to allow dirty coal-fired power plants to increase their pollution dramatically,” said David Hawkins, director of NRDC’s Climate Center. “That would accelerate global warming, poison more of our water, scar more of our landscape, and kill more of our citizens with particulate air pollution.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. 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 US had decided, under Bush’s dad (George Herbert Hoover – sorry, Walker) not to do anything about climate change. They threatened to boycott the 1992 Earth Summit if the UNFCCC draft text included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. And the proponents of that, well, they blinked.
The specific context was that “Dubya” on the campaign trail in 2000 had said that he would regulate carbon dioxide emissions. And then, once President Cheney – sorry, Bush – took office he said “nah” and also pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. Just plain evil.
What I think we can learn from this. Politicians will say WHATEVER they think you want to hear to get into office.
What happened next Bush/Cheney’s plan to build hundreds of coal-fired power stations didn’t work out so well, in part because Michael Bloomberg funded the Sierra Club to stop it all.
U.S. District Court judge ruled against the expansion of Arch Coal’s West Elk mine in Colorado for failure of federal regulators to consider the social cost of carbon [3] in their environmental review.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that one of the favoured tools for liberal opponents of climate change is the court system. And sometimes there are, it seems, some “victories”. Often reversed, but well, what are you gonna do?
What I think we can learn from this. “They make the laws to chain us well”…
What happened next. The courts get stacked with dickhead judges, cases get dismissed and the emissions climb….
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 five years ago, on this day, May 5th, 1990, Australian coal merchants have to pretend to give a damn,
1990 Australian Coal Association conference dominated by environmental issues
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the 1988 conference (they had started in 1978, were bi-ennial) had not had environment on the agenda – the issue of climate change only properly broke through later that year. By 1990 though, international negotiations were pending, and the Australian government had already considered signing up to the “Toronto Target” of a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2005. The coal lobby had, therefore, to show what Good Corporate Citizens they were. There was even talk of carbon capture and storage.
What I think we can learn from this
You can use trade association publications and trade conferences as a barometer of what is going on – not necessarily of what the leading actors think, but of what they are worrying about, and what they want other people (regulators, publics, boycott-considering NGOs etc) to think.
What happened next
The fightback against any meaningful climate policy began at about this time and has continued – with remarkable success – down unto this day. Australia’s coal exports grew and grew and grew and plenty of people got rich. During the commodity super-cycle of the 2000s John Howard used the profits accruing to the state (not as much as they could have been) to bribe middle-class voters so he could stay in power. It’s a bit like Thatcher’s use of North Sea Oil in the 1980s to fund unemployment benefits… And here we are.
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 one years ago, on this day, April 15th, 1994,
Greenpeace yesterday sought to test a new international treaty on global warming for the first time by filing a lawsuit to stop the construction of a $220 million New South Wales power station. The executive director of Greenpeace, Ms Lynette Thorstensen, said the action would test the force of the United Nations convention on climate change, which seeks to cut greenhouse gases.
1994 Kelly, H. 1994. Greenpeace Sues To Halt Building. The Age, 16 April, p.4.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia had signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which talked about stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 and of course, Australia had nominally agreed to 20% cut by 2005 though this was totally hedged with caveats to make it meaningless.
Building new coal fired power stations was going to blow an enormous hole in all of that. Ironically, this was the day that the UNFCCC became international law, because 90 days had passed since enough nations had ratified it.
What I think we can learn from this Is that government pronouncements and policy statements are not worth a bucket of warm spit unless there are vibrant, uncooptable and irrepressible social movements forcing them to keep at least some of their promises. They will promise you anything that you want to hear and worry about the consequences of being caught having broken promises later.
What happened next
Greenpeace lost that court case in, I think, November of 1994 and the coal fired power station got built.
And the emissions kept climbing.
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.
Exactly 20 years ago, the first “clean coal” conference began in Sydney.
“The Australian Coal Association says advances in technology have boosted the prospects for a zero emissions power station in the New South Wales Hunter Valley in the not too distant future.
“New clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage projects will be the main topics on the agenda at this week’s inaugural COAL21 annual conference which gets under way in Sydney today.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia had become the world’s biggest coal exporter in 1984 primarily from Queensland and New South Wales. From 1988 Australian political elites had had to pretend to give a damn about carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. There had been efforts to get a carbon pricing mechanism (first a tax and then an emissions trading scheme). All of these had come to nothing.
Australia had pulled out of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol, despite having extorted an extremely generous reduction target, the reduction being an increase in their emissions. But nonetheless, there were presentational concerns and probably some well-meaning people within various public and private bodies who genuinely believed that clean coal could be a thing, and it’s always nice to believe technosalvationist fairytales.
What I think we can learn from this is that people believe what they need to believe. People say what they need to say, and the emissions keep climbing.
What happened next
People said what they wanted to say, other people heard what they wanted to hear, and the emissions kept climbing.
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, March 13th, 2007,
Australia’s coal and power generation industries must shoulder a large part of the cost of developing clean coal technologies, investing ”billions not millions” to mitigate climate change, ACTU secretary Greg Combet says. ”We are talking about companies that make multibillion-dollar profits from coal mining. It is only fair that a slice of those profits be directed to the research and development needed to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions,” he said. Speaking from the Hunter Valley, where he was launching a clean coal discussion paper with Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett, Mr Combet called for the Federal Government’s Minimum Renewable Energy Target for green electricity generation to be boosted.
Beeby, R. 2007. Put power profits into clean energy: Combet. Canberra Times, 13 March.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the ALP, in opposition federally, was using climate as a big stick to beat Prime Minister John Howard with. It had the added advantage of squaring the circle of their support for coal miners and coal mining; they needed something like geosequestration, CCS. So here we have Greg Combet, who would end up as Gillard’s Environment Minister, but that’s for the future, spouting guff about “the industry has to do X or Y,” and this is the classic triangulating position of seeming to be a friend of the worker and chiding industry bosses. It’s all nice theater.
What I think we can learn from this that CCS is an extremely useful way of squaring various circles.
But I think we’re now entering the world of nobody really bothering to pretend. We’re into the unmitigated disaster phase of it all.
What happened next Rudd bunged 100 million of Australian taxpayers dollars at a Global Carbon Capture and Storage Initiative. So, money well spent.
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.
So, presumably a Swedish journalist travelling around British coal fields in the 1920s and wondering about global warming will have been influenced by Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish scientist who’d done the calculations about what carbon dioxide build-up would mean in 1895 as a way of distracting himself from a messy divorce.
But maybe not. Maybe Lotka (see footnote)? In any case, all will be revealed by Andreas Malm (for it is he), this coming Thursday, in Bloomsbury, London.
Andreas Malm, author of How to Blow Up A Pipeline: learning to fight in a world on fire, discusses British histories of coal intertwined with Swedish working-class literature in the 2024 Raphael Samuel Memorial Lecture.
In 1928, a young Ivar Lo Johansson, soon to become the leading Swedish working-class novelist, published what might have been the first consistently dire warning about the climatic effects of large-scale coal combustion. It was included in a book of reportage about life in the British coal districts. What led Lo Johansson to his precocious prediction? This lecture will trace the intersecting paths of subaltern wilderness politics and early climate science in the Swedish movement of working-class literature in general and the works of Lo Johansson in particular.
Andreas Malm is associate senior professor of human ecology at Lund University, Sweden. His latest books, both out from Verso in October, are The Destruction of Palestine Is the Destruction of the Earth and, written with Wim Carton, Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown.
For information contact Katy Pettit k.pettit@bbk.ac.uk
