Category: Industry Associations

Categories
Industry Associations International processes

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

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 5, 2010…

A group of academics who have been working with the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) and the Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII) have called for diplomats attending the upcoming Bonn and Mexico climate talks and summit to take insurance into account.

A policy brief issued by the academic groups calls for insurance to play a key role in reducing climate change risks and influencing climate adaptation projects.

“Our research over the past years has shown that insurance solutions – with coordinated public-private action and some international support – has the potential to help vulnerable countries and people adapt to climate change”, stated Koko Warner (UNU-EHS), lead author of the policy brief ‘Solutions for Vulnerable Countries and People’. “Now it is time to move from knowledge to action. The need to link DRR and insurance and scaling them up is greater than ever to get the critical mass for adaptation”, Dr. Warner continued. 

https://www.artemis.bm/news/academics-say-insurance-could-play-key-role-in-reducing-climate-change-risks/

Home

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Copenhagen gathering had been a complete failure. And so academics thought that if they could geinsurance companies involved, then it might shake loose some of the intransigence. I don’t know if they knew it, but Greenpeace had tried the same shtick 15 years earlier at the first COP, in Berlin, with very limited success. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people always think that there is a button that can be pushed, a lever that can be pulled, to get us out of this fix. But it probably would require Cthulhu pushing and pulling with all of its tentacles repeatedly to make the machine shift. 

What happened next

The insurance companies put out some glossy reports and there was some hand-wringing and 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 Industry Associations

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

Fifty years ago, on this day, May 4, 1973, the  Australian Mining Industry Council advertised for an environmental policy officer.

1973  AMIC advert for an environmental policy officer in Canberra Times

Canberra Times 5 May p 23

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the relatively new Australian Mining Industry Council is advertising for an environmental policy officer because this hippie bollocks about pollution was clearly not going to go away. I have had the unalloyed pleasure of reading the environmental information bulletins of the Australian Mining Industry Council. They’re available at the National Library of Australia in Tasmania in Canberra. And they are silent as far as I could tell, on the question of greenhouse gases.

What I think we can learn from this

Not entirely surprising, because trade associations are there to help companies fight today’s battles. And greenhouse was not today’s battle in 1973 74 75.

What happened next

AMIC threw its weight around in the 80s and 90s, to the point it became so toxic it had to be rebranded as the Minerals Council of Australia(see Geoff Allen’s consultancy work on this in 1994). 

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

Categories
Australia Coal Cultural responses Denial Economics of mitigation Industry Associations

 May 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence… – 

The greenies need to be put back in their box…. Lobbying, economic modelling, scare campaigns, smears. The usual…

“The recent shift in the environmental debate to promote global rather than regional goals is causing alarm among the world’s leading industrialists because of its potential to distort world trade and regional economies.

“The impact on Australia is assuming major proportions, with an Access Economics study to be released next week revealing that one-third of almost$40 billion in proposed mining and manufacturing projects are under threat of environmental veto”

 Massey, M. 1990. Environmental debate tops agenda at coal conference. Australian Financial Review, 4 May, p. 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that industry had only just started to push back against green groups. It had lazily assumed that the whole thing was a fad that would blow itself out very quickly. It was only really in late 1989/early 1990 that they started, in Australia, to properly co-ordinate a firm response…

What I think we can learn from this

When they wreck everyone’s future, that’s within normal parameters. If anyone tries to stop them, even slow them, that counts as “distortion”

What happened next

They won.  The UN process was effectively kneecapped. Domestic processes were kneecapped. They got rich. The atmosphere got enriched too – with insane amounts of carbon dioxide…

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 Agnotology Business Responses Coal Industry Associations United States of America

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 27, 2007, a US gas company had to stop smearing coal…

Washington – The founder of a group that ran a series of newspaper ads attacking the coal industry for selling a product that they called “filthy” says the campaign is ending.

The effort, promoted as pro-environment, was sponsored by a rival energy company, a natural-gas-production company, and sparked a round of protests from members of Congress and trade associations.

Fialka, J. 2007. Ad Campaign Bashing Coal Is Ended After Uproar. Wall Street Journal, 27 April.

This had started in early February 2007–

“the ads were placed anonymously by a two-week-old group called the Texas Clean Sky Coalition. Only one of the nation’s largest gas producers, Chesapeake Energy Corp., acknowledged helping finance the advertising campaign — which easily cost several hundred thousand dollars.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a natural gas company had been trying to use climate concerns to boost its own product. And this is something that the gas industry has been looking at with more or less interest in –  throwing coal under the bus, framing coal as the dirtiest fuel. Therefore gas automatically becomes sort of some kind of “transition fuel”.

What I think we can learn from this

 It’s a seductive myth. That, yes, we need a long term transition. But while we’re getting there, gas can help. What we learn is that this fossil fuel industry is not in any sense united, though, we should note that people who do gas and oil tend to have the same bosses.

What happened next

Didn’t the guy who founded Cheseapeake Energy do suicide by Porsche? Yes, yes he did.

And threw loads of money the Sierra Club’s way to help them fund their anti-coal campaigns…

https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/03/03/108926/how-chesapeake-ceo-aubrey-mcclendon-helped-push-coal-to-the-brink/

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
Denial Industry Associations International processes UNFCCC United Nations United States of America

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

Thirty one years ago, on this day, February 27, 1992, denialists released a denial statement during what were supposed to be the last negotiations before the “Earth Summit”, the one where a text was supposed to be agreed that could then lock-in the attendance of Prime Ministers and Leaders…

In February 1992 the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) published the “Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming” objecting to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Earth Summit planned for Rio de Janiero in June 1992.[1]

The signatories to the letter complained that the Earth Summit “aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations. Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.” 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SEPP_and_the_Statement_by_Atmospheric_Scientists_on_Greenhouse_Warming

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The climate negotiations were coming to a crunch. The whole thing might fall over. The US administration, with George Bush senior as the boss, was blocking blocking blocking, but there was always the fear they might – with a US Presidential election pending – make concessions. The denialists wanted to make that more unlikely by making it more costly….

What I think we can learn from this

Those fearful of change will keep pushing even if “their guy” (and it usually is a guy) is ‘rock solid’.  They take little/nothing for granted. That attitude, and all their money, and their structural position within the economy, explains why they win so often…

What happened next

Bush held firm. The French blinked on the question of targets and timetables for emissions reductions in the climate treaty. There were extra “negotiations” in May in New York, but they were just really a white flag being run up. Everyone went to Rio for a grip and grin.

The following 30 years have been about trying to claw back a mechanism by which rich countries would actually cut emissions.
It was never going to be easy, but the Bush Whitehouse rendered it actually impossible.

Am so very very glad I did not breed, because I’d have had to try to teach my kid a whole bunch of survival skills for a shituation whose particular needs are pretty impossible to specify.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Denial Industry Associations Kyoto Protocol United States of America

November 5, 1997 – Global Climate Coalition co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference

On November 5, 1997, twenty five years ago today, the Global Climate Coalition [bunch of oil companies, automobile companies and assorted denialists] co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference. With the third meeting of the UNFCCC (United Nations agreement on climate) looming, denialists funded by the oil and car industries (among others), met to try to make life even harder for the Clinton Administration.

1997  “On November 5, the GCC coordinated a national conference opposing the Clinton Administration’s involvement in the Kyoto conference. The conference was sponsored by a number of radical anti-environmental organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, People for the West!, and the Environmental Conservation Organization  

A CLEAR view Vol 4, Number 16

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

“Our” failure to act on climate is not JUST down to ignorance/laziness etc. It has also been helped on its way by determined and clever opponents of action.

What happened next

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed, but neither the USA or Australia ever ratified it. It limped into existence because Russia DID ratify it, as a quid pro quo for getting into the World Trade Organisation.   Kyoto was supposed to be replaced in 2012, but the 2009 Copenhagen meeting ended in chaos etc. And then Paris and… oh, what a shitshow.

Categories
Denial Industry Associations International processes United States of America

August 24, 1994 – first signs of a split in the anti-climate action business coalition…

On this day, August 24th, in 1994 the first signs of a split in the business opposition to climate action appeared.

[The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 357.59 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.]

“An additional factor was the splintering of industrial interests. The Global Climate Coalition and the Climate Council had been the main industry participants in the INC, representing mainly coal and oil interests. However, a development within INC 10 was the emergence of an industry lobby in favour of the convention’s further C02 reductions (ECO, 24 August 1994: 4; 26 August, 1994: 1). There was now a wide coalition of industrial interests favouring action on climate change. One consisted of parts of the insurance industry, scared of losses from freak weather (and whose interests have been forwarded, interestingly, by Greenpeace). Another was the ‘sunrise industries’ of renewables and energy efficiency. Yet another was the gas industry. 

Matthew Paterson 1996 page 194

Why this matters. 

Splits in the previously united church/state/business sector are part of ‘how things change’ if you believe all that dialectic stuff. It’s immaterial now though, given how the atmospheric concentrations have climbed, will climb…

What happened next?

A few re-insurers turned up for a day at the COP1 meeting in Berlin the following year, but were of course outnumbered, outgunned and outfought by the fossil lobbyists. (See Jeremy Leggett’s “The Carbon War” for an account of this).

Then, in 1997, BP became the first sizeable defector from the Global Climate Coalition. Now actual outright denial is relatively rare. But resistance to appropriate action continues…

Categories
Australia Denial Industry Associations Kyoto Protocol

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

On this day, August 20, 1997, a mining trade industry figure, Dick Wells of the Minerals Council of Australia totally misrepresents what the IPCC was by this time saying about climate change.”

[The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 362.4 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.]

“In an interview on ABC television, 7.30 Report on 20.8.97, Dick Wells stated that industry did not support the assertion that most scientists believe a build up of gases will cause climate change. Instead, industry supports the IPCC results which, he asserts, conclude that there is doubt about the science. Mr Wells goes on to say industry takes the issue seriously, that there is a “need for caution and we like good science … we’re a science based industry …” and concludes “there are a wide range of scientific opinions about what the impacts are going to be of any global warming and what we’re saying is it’s still prudent to do cost effective measures now and that’s what we’re embarking on with government but to go beyond those measures which deliver economic benefits, we think it would not be prudent to do so at this stage.””

(Duncan, 1997:84)

Yes, this would be the same IPCC whose second assessment report had – to howls of confected outrage from the Global Climate Coalition – concluded that the “balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Why this matters. 

Industry gets to seem reasonable. Australians don’t get up out of their armchairs and demand much much more of their elected leaders. Result!

What happened next?

The mining industry kept on keeping on. Who do you think supplied that lacquered lump of coal to Scott Morrison to brandish in parliament? Who do you think his inner circle was made up of?

Categories
Australia Energy Industry Associations

 August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

On this day, 1st August 2015, the World Coal Association tried once again to distract people from coal’s civilisation and eco-system destroying nature. That’s (part of) its job, that’s what member companies expect in return for their subscription.

The World Coal Association (WCA) called on the World Bank to recognize the vital role of coal in bringing electricity to people in developing and emerging economies

Anon, 2015. WCA Calls on World Bank to Recognize Coal’s Critical Role. Engineering & Mining Journal, Volume 216; Issue 8, 26 1 August.

This has been going on for decades, of course. Smear competing technologies (nuclear, renewables), say you’re indispensable etc.

My personal favourite of the genre is Peabody’s brazen “Advanced Energy for Life” effort from the previous year. They must have been delighted when Australian wrecking ball turned Prime Minister Tony Abbott had parrotted that line (saying “coal is good for humanity”)  when opening a (what else) coal mine later that year.

This, from the Australia Institute in 2014, is useful

Energy Poverty and Coal “All Talk No Action” Australia Institute Report

“Ahead of the G-20 meeting in Australia later this week, a new report by an Australian think-tank convincingly punctures coal industry claims that coal is an essential part of the solution to lack of access to electricity in the developing world.

Zeroing in on Peabody Energy’s “Advanced Energy for Life” global public relations campaign, which contends coal-fired power is a cheap, effective way to provide power to the large impoverished areas of India, Pakistan and elsewhere that now have none, the new study by the Australia Institute states that, “Peabody’s only contribution to energy poverty is maintaining a website and social media page which promotes coal as the solution to the problem…. Despite extensive searches and contact with companies and mining lobby groups, we could not find a single example where coal companies have supported coal-powered energy poverty alleviation projects.” 

Meanwhile, billions of people need reliable cheap electricity, and if we had got on with developing decent sources of renewables, with storage, instead of allowing our “best minds” to make missiles, surveillance and marketing algorithms and assorted nonsense, we’d probably be a lot closer to that. Oh well.

As per this website, on this day the atmospheric CO2 ppm was 399.11

Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

We need remember that threatened technologies rarely go down without a fight, and that for coal, playing the “we’re indispensable” card.

What happened next?

They keep at it. Personal favourite is the recent claim that coal is a “transition” fuel in light of the war in the Ukraine sending gas prices through the roof.

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels Industry Associations United Kingdom

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

On this day, third of April 1991, the World Coal Institute was holding a conference in London

Rubin, E. 1991. Environmental constraints: Threat to Coal’s Future? Keynote Session Presentation to the World Coal Institute Conference on Coal In the Environment London, England April 3, 1991

The question of coal’s longevity was because of environmental constraints was a hot topic, because negotiations were underway (or rather, Uncle Sam was busy slowing down attempted negotiations) for a global climate treaty.

The World Coal Institute had formed in the late 70s as a global body for the coal production industry. It has emerged out of a smaller group as these things are wont to do. And of course, by 1991, everyone  and their dog was still kind of talking about climate change if they weren’t talking about the war in Iraq. 

And what we learned is that there have been various technological options (not solutions – and eye-wateringly expensive) sitting alongside a certain amount of, so-called scepticism, leaning over into outright denial. 

Why this matters. 

We need to know that the industry lobbies are always active, always watching who is trying to figure out how to turn an issue  back into a problem and a problem into a non problem. And often they succeed at least in the short-term. That’s predatory delay for you.

What happened next?

The World Coal Institute would become the World Coal Association. And it would fight the “good” fight on resistance to regulations, and spouting hopey-changey nonsense about new technologies (CCS, HELE – the acronyms change, but the siren song of delay and putative technosalvation remains the same).. That is what these types of outfits do, and they generally do it quite well, if you’re a politician looking for cover to not do the right thing by future generations…