Forty six years ago, on this day, November 15th, 1979, the FT reports
“West Germany is to set up a study which could have a serious impact on its future energy policies, which at present stress the central importance of coal. The investigation is into the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.”
Boyes, Roger, 1979. Germany Probes Fossil Fuel Effects. Financial Times, November 15, p. 2
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. 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 Germans had been worrying about carbon dioxide for a little while by now (Hermann Flohn’s influence, possibly?).
The specific context was by the mid-1970s meetings were being held at IIASA and elsewhere about the problem. German scientists, and some politicians, were on the case. The first World Climate Conference, hosted by the WMO, had taken place in February 1979 in Geneva. In June 1979 Helmut Schmidt gave an interview to Time magazine where he explicitly mentioned carbon dioxide build-up. The G7 meeting (in Tokyo) had namechecked the issue.
What I think we can learn from this – plenty of people knew. But what are you going to do if you run on coal and nukes?
What happened next – the emissions kept climbing, of course. At the G7 in Bonn in 1985, the climate issue got namechecked again.
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, November 3rd, 2007, there was a second “Rising Tide Australia” boat blockade of Newcastle Port,
On June 5, 2006, in a Rising Tide Australia action, 70 people used small boats to blockade the port of Newcastle, Australia, which exports 80 million tons of coal each year. The protest aimed to call attention to a planned expansion that would allow the port to export twice that amount.[1] The action was repeated by 100 people on Nov. 3, 2007: at this second action, participants attempted to block ships from entering the port for four hours, but police boats managed to escort three ships into the port. At one point, a police jetski rammed one woman’s kayak, resulting in her hospitalization.[2][3]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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 climate change had exploded onto the Australian political scene in September 2006.
The specific context was Rising Tide folks were willing to put their bodies on the line.
“I felt then, and I still believe today, that this was one of the great moments of the ’60s, a moment of communal self-awareness and courage and initiative and growth. But it was a moment of collective failure and pathetic inadequacy as well. Our ritual, in order to strengthen us for the struggle, assured us that we possessed the power to overcome the destructive forces we faced—that we could be, to use another phrase of Mailer’s, “revolutionary alchemists.” And yet, alas, the more seriously we took our confrontation with these demonic powers, the more futile and hollow we were bound to feel—for we knew, after all, that our magic could not work. Even as we closed in on the Pentagon, we knew that computers were being programmed and orders given inside, and bombs were being dropped a half a world away, and people were being killed, and we had no power to stop it. For an hour or so, thousands of us played running games with soldiers and police, trying to outflank them or break through their lines, to make it up the stairs to the building’s front door. (Many succeeded—they would get beaten up savagely later that night—but many more failed, including me: I got teargassed, along with a few hundred other people, and we all tumbled and got pushed down a hill.) Soon it was cold and dark, and the Pentagon became an enormous solid implacable malevolent mass slumbering above and around us, and we stopped running and threw draft cards into piles, and lit them to start small bonfires. And gathered around, still shaky and oddly stoned from the gas, and tried to come to terms with what we had done. We had faced up to some of the black terrors of the night, and called them by their real name; and our deed, like our campfire, had brought us a little light and warmth; but it had done nothing to bring the dawn.”
What happened next – the blockades have continued. So have the exports. So has the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
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, October 16th, 2001
Washington, DC – With many areas of the country still facing tight electricity supplies in coming years, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today announced more than $110 million in new projects to apply leading edge clean coal technologies to improve the reliability and environmental performance of the Nation’s coal-burning power plants.
Abraham announced that the federal government will share the costs of outfitting eight power plants to become “showcases” of ways coal plants can continue generating low-cost electricity with better performance and in compliance with tight environmental standards.
October 16, 2001 Abraham Announces Projects to Bolster Electricity Supply from Coal Plants “Power Plant Improvement Initiative” is Precursor to President’s Clean Coal Technology Program
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. 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 the US was in one of its periodic phases of announcing “energy independence” (see also Nixon in late 1973).
The specific context was Dubya Bush on the campaign trail had said that carbon dioxide would need regulating. After his daddy’s Supreme Court picks gifted him the White House, his boss (Dick Cheney) kibboshed that.
What I think we can learn from this – they lie, they lie, they lie.
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, October 8th, 2007,
Environmental campaigners today claimed to have taken over a power station in Kent in a protest designed to stop the prime minister, Gordon Brown, from approving the UK’s first new coal plant in more than 30 years.
Just after 5am this morning, 50 Greenpeace volunteers entered Kingsnorth coal-fired power station. One group immobilised the conveyor belts carrying coal into the plant and chained themselves to the machinery. A second group with enough provisions to last for several days, began scaling a 200m ladder up the chimney which they painted with the words “Gordon Bin It”.
Robin Oakley, a senior energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the protest posed no risk to the energy supply.
“Taking one power station off the national grid will not lead to a blackout,” he stressed. “There is plenty of spare supply in the system.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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, as per previous blog post, on October 6, Greenpeace had been occupying things since its earliest days. Meanwhile, the Climate Change Act was going through parliament and all eyes were on Copenhagen the following year as one of the many “last chances to save the Earth.”
The specific context was that the UK government of Gordon Brown was trying to sell the idea of coal-fired power plants that were “capture ready”. Ed Miliband not having one of his finest hours….
What I think we can learn from this – some forms of symbolic non-violent direct action, well-timed and executed can “work.”
What happened next
In September 2008…
“Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage during a protest over coal-fired power.
The activists were charged with causing £30,000 of damage after they scaled Kingsnorth power station in Hoo, Kent.
At Maidstone Crown Court Judge David Caddick said the jury had to examine whether protesters had a lawful excuse.”
The first CCS competition fizzled out in late 2011.
Coal was pushed out of the UK Grid from 2014 onwards. If Greenpeace and others had not acted, this would not have happened.
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 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.
