Categories
United States of America

April 2, 2007 -Massachusetts (etc) get Supreme Court to tell the EPA that carbon dioxide is a pollutant

On this day 18 years ago, the US Supreme Court – albeit on a 5-4 split – obeyed the laws – of physics.  In a case brought by various states, because George W Bush’s people at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency were dragging their heels on doing anything about, oh, you know (checks notes)… THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD>

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

The context was that the EPA had been created in October 1970, thanks to societal pressure, bipartisan supporting and Republican Richard Nixon going with the flow to grab credit.  It has a spotty record, shall we say, on climate (though see the October 1983 report “Can We Delay A Greenhouse Warming?” and various sea-level rise conferences and reports.

In 1988 George W Bush’s dad, George HW, had said he would deal with the greenhouse effect with the White House effect. The toe-rag lied.

On the campaign trail in 2000 George W. Bush had said he would regulate CO2.  He then, after having the presidency handed to him by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, pulled out of Kyoto Protocol negotiations and did everything he could to do nothing on climate change.  Various state governments, fed up, sued.


What we learn. We are not a serious species. You can love us, but we are not a serious species.

What happened next.  More back and forth, more “fun” and games. And the emissions climb, and Mephistopheles has turned up with the bill and is gonna drag us all to hell.  So it goes.

Haven’t checked on how the Supreme Court is made up these days, but I am sure it’s chock full of intelligent, non-doctrinaire men and women alive to the contradictions of capitalism and willing to stand up for justice.

Also on this day

April 2, 1968 – Oz Senate debates Air Pollution Select Committee

April 2, 1979 – AAAS workshop in Anaheim begins…

April 2, 2008 – Senator Barack Obama blathers about coal

Categories
Australia

April 1, 1970 – Eco-documentary shown on Melbourne TV, carbon dioxide build-up mentioned

On this day, April 1, 1970 55 years ago, people in Melbourne were treated to a British documentary called “Pollution: And on the Eighth Day.” that, near the end of its hour run-time briefly warned them about carbon dioxide build up. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from about 1967-68 onwards, people in the UK, Australia and the United States were becoming more and more alarmed at changes in the natural environment and the impacts of technological “progress” etc. In 1969 a television documentary maker called Richard Broad put together a program called Pollution: And On The Eighth Day. This had been shown in the UK in January 1970 with considerable media attention, and now it was being broadcast in Melbourne. A couple of weeks before Australian Parliament had had its first mention of the issue when South Australian Richard Gunn raised it in his maiden speech. 

What I think we can learn from this is that British documentaries were trusted and respected. What we don’t know is whether this had much impact on the people of Melbourne. The broader context was that by 1970 people were identifying carbon dioxide as a long term possible threat, and that this was being noticed by readers of newspapers and writers of letters to newspapers. 

What happened next The Australian government started to mention the issue in passing. It would take until 1988 before the problem became an issue…

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

March 31, 2007 – Earth Hour (the most putrid kind of virtue signalling)

Eighteen years ago, on this day, March 31st, 2007,

2007 FIRST ‘EARTH Hour’ – WWF Sydney

(see also 2009- http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/australia-in-climate-change-blackout/ and

http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/australia-in-climate-change-blackout/

2007 A recent example of intellectual corruption at the highest levels of Australian business was manifest when the Sydney Morning Herald teamed up with WWF to promote ‘Earth Hour’ on Saturday 31 March last. The idea was that, at 7:30 pm, everyone in Sydney should turn off their lights and shut down their TVs, and so on, in order to save the planet for an hour.

Ray Evans on 27 April 2007

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

Earth Hour, a typical WWF stunt in Sydney where people get to feel virtuous for doing fuck all. The theory goes that these are baby steps that prod people to more and bigger action. It’s utter bullshit. 

See also March 22 blog post.

What I think we can learn from this is the world is run by utter bullshit, and the world will drown in its own shit from humans because the existing systems can’t absorb the crap. 

What happened next

I don’t know that they still do Earth Hour, because it depends on a particular vibe, and I don’t think anyone’s paying any attention. It’s the equivalent of “Buy Nothing Day.” 

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: 

 March 31, 1973 – Protest in Piccadilly Circus

March 31, 1998 – another report about #climate and business in the UK

March 31, 1998 – two business-friendly climate events in UK and Australia

Categories
Australia

March 30, 2007 – economist Nick Stern in Australia

Eighteen years ago, on this day, March 30th, 2007, World Bank economist Nick Stern visits Australia…

In the sometimes icy world of climate change politics, there appears to be a quiet hum of agreement about the desirability of an emissions trading scheme.

The visiting climate change economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, supports the idea.

The Prime Minister, after years of disinterest, has given it a tentative tick of approval by commissioning a task group on emissions trading, which will report at the end of May. And the state governments have set up their own emissions trading taskforce.

Even the big polluters – Qantas, Alumina, BHP – all endorse it in submissions to the two inquiries. But there are serious divisions about how an emissions trading scheme might work.

Saulwick, J. 2007. Climate change debate warms up in corporate world. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 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 Stern Review on the economics of climate change had come out in October 2006 and had become a minor part of the Australian awakening and the argument for a carbon price. Prime Minister John Howard had been forced to do a U-turn and appoint the so-called Shergold Group to look at emissions trading. It was of course, stacked with business interests. How could it be anything else? Stern was on a whistlestop tour of Australia. (I don’t know who funded it and what the rationale was, but there he was. It’s possible that he was brought out by Labor-aligned people who wanted to see the back of Howard.)

What I think we can learn from this is that, if I’m right in my supposition, policy entrepreneurs will bring in foreigners with kudos to try and help them win domestic battles.  Pawns on a chess board is an imperfect analogy, because there’s a set number of pieces at the start of chess…

What happened next

Stern admitted that he was wrong in 2013 at Davos and that the implications were worse. See 

January 25, 2013 – Lord Stern admits #climate “worse than I thought”

John Howard was comprehensively defeated in 2007 November at the Australian Federal election, and Australia did finally get an ETS very briefly, between 2012-2014. It was then abolished by Tony Abbott. 

Australian emissions haven’t really significantly dipped (and not at all if you count all those coal exports).

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: 

 March 30, 1948 – The Conservation Foundation founded

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

Categories
Australia

 March 29, 1995 –  “a transparent attempt to promote the Australian coal industry”

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 29th, 1995, Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner, fresh from losing the carbon tax battle) gave a press conference 

J Faulkner (Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories),Press conference for the release of Greenhouse 21C, speech, 29 March 1995 

Greenpeace’s climate campaigner, Mr Keith Tarlo, said the biggest single item was the $25 million program to promote clean coal technology in India.

“This is a scandal. (It) is a transparent attempt to promote the Australian coal industry and can only lock India into escalating greenhouse emissions,” he said.

Boreham, G. 1995. Industry Says Yes, Greens Say No To Emissions Policy. The Age, 30 March, p.3. 

AND

Greenpeace said the biggest item in the package was $25 million to promote “clean coal” technology overseas. This was really meant to boost Australian coal exports and the “clean” meant only low sulphur content, it said.

Shehan, C. and McCathie, A. 1995. Bid To Cut Gas Levels – But It’s Voluntary. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March, p.3.

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 there had been a bloody and ultimately successful campaign against a mild, minor carbon tax. And here John Faulkner, who had proposed that tax had to pretend the booby prize, which was the Greenhouse 21 challenge (presumably had been written by civil servants or given to them by business as the lowest common denominator) would make a blind bit of difference.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you’re not going to have anything serious, but you still have “presentational problems” on an issue that voters might care about, then you come up with these bullshit voluntary schemes. 

What happened next

Greenhouse 21 was a joke, as was the Australian Greenhouse office, as was Greenhouse Challenge Plus. And everybody stopped pretending that it was worth continuing to pretend by about 2005. But the pretence continues – it has to…

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: 

March 29, 1979 – Health impacts of carbon dioxide discussed…

March 29, 1993 – C02 Disposal symposium takes place in Oxford

March 29, 1995- Kuwaiti scientist says if global warming happening, it’s not fossil fuels. #MRDA

Categories
International processes United States of America

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 28th, 2001,

2001 Bush kills US ratification of Kyoto

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that on the campaign trail, George W Bush had promised to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. People who wanted to believe that chose to believe that this was a Kyoto ratification promise. It was not. President Cheney told his underling what to say, and the underling said it. For the benefit of short term benefit of oil and gas companies, but also by now, it was entrenched as part of the bigger “culture war.”

What I think we can learn from this

that you can trust people to pursue their material and ideological interests as they understand them in the short term and to hell with the consequences. And if someone gets cold feet, they are replaceable. They’re always replaceable.

See Julian Rathbone’s superior eco thriller The Eurokillers for a fictional representation of this. 

What happened next

To absolutely no one surprised that Prime Minister John Howard pulled Australia out of Kyoto negotiations on World Environment Day the following year, 2002. But nonetheless, Kyoto was finally ratified in 2005 because the Russians wanted membership in the World Trade Organization. Meanwhile, 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.

Also on this day: 

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

March 27, 1995 – former Nature editor John Maddox admits was wrong on Greenhouse, without, er, admitting it.

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 28th, 1995,

27 March 1995, to another Australian audience – “On the greenhouse effect, Sir John suggested that the onus of proof had shifted towards those who denied it”. https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-253921166/view?sectionId=nla.obj-259513073&partId=nla.obj-253927437#

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 the first IPCC report had come out, and the second was near completion. John Maddox, finally, 25 years after his first attacks on carbon dioxide concerns, was conceding that those worried had been right and he’d been wrong. Not that he put it in those words of course.

The older context was that in 1971 Maddox on a visit to Australia had rubbished worries about carbon dioxide….

What I think we can learn from this is it takes old white men a very long time to change their tune. It’s not clear to me that the former Met Office supremo, John Mason, for example, ever did. 

What happened next

The second IPCC report came out saying that there was a discernible influence of human activity. And this word got monstered. The denialists knew enough not to go for Bert Bolin, so they went for Ben Santer instead.

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: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Categories
Norway

March 27, 1971 – Norwegian Tabloid talks about the climate threat

Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 27th, 1971,

In 1971, in Norway’s largest tabloid newspaper, a journalist reported [on March 27] that global warming “may cause the polar ice to melt, that the ocean will rise above its shores, that cities and large territories of land will be under water, [and] that humans will be displaced to mountain regions” (Anonymous 1971). This alarming news story, possibly the first reference to the issue of global warming in Norwegian press, was buried in a host of similar stories of doom and gloom. Since Earth Day a year before, readers had become used to hearing about a fast approaching environmental Ragnarök. This was alarming news to Norwegians who would typically spend their vacations enjoying the country’s beautiful fjords and mountains. 

Anonymous (1971) Og havet vil stige, VG March 27 

Source: Anker, 2018

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the previous year, in February, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands had mentioned CO2 build up. There were probably other mentions in the press, but crucially, this is apparently the first one in the Norwegian press, alongside a general sense of ecological problems, there was also a very specific climatological issue. 

What I think we can learn from this

Climate change was among the other late 1960s-early 197s eco-concerns…

What happened next

Well, nine years later, the Minister for Statoil said it was a long way off.  [see March 21, 1980]

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: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

Categories
Australia Denmark UNFCCC United Nations

March 26, 2010 – How many Aussie Government types were at Nopenhagen? Lots!

Fifteen years ago, on this day, March 26th, 2010, the Labor government was forced to give details of the size of the (large) Australian delegation to COP-15 in Copenhagen. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that  Copenhagen hadn’t just been Kevin Rudd tearing up  the speech that had been written for him, rewriting it and delivering it to a total lack of applause. No, Copenhagen had been 70 or 75 officials and experts and so forth, all flying halfway around the world to save the world. And the Liberals were wanting to punch the bruise, and so requested the information in order to have the ammo that to run a one day wonder, “waste of money, pointy headed bureaucrats with their snouts in the trough style” article. And so it came to pass.

What I think we can learn from this

that any international negotiation is going to involve sherpas at the summit and all sorts of other malarkey. And for those who are opposed to the agenda of whatever the summit is, it’s a very easy writes-itself kind of critique. And that’s what happened. 

What happened next

A couple months after this Rudd was gone. The climate issue, however, was not…

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: 

March 26, 1979 – Exxon meets a climate scientist

March 26, 1993 – UK government to ratify climate treaty

March 26, 2007 – Lavoisier Group lay into CCS

Categories
Interviews

Interview with Dave Vetter – “politics is downstream of culture”

Dave Vetter writes extremely well about climate change and the messiness of it all. He has a very much worth-your-time set of essays about climate disinformation, a judiciously active social media presence (first on the site that Shall Not Be Named) and latterly on Bluesky. He kindly agreed to an interview…

Who are you – i.e. roughly when were you born, where did you grow up, what did you do after leaving school?

I was born in Edinburgh at some point in the (cough) 1970s, but grew up in Cardiff, where it rained so hard for so long that I ran away to East Asia. I spent a few years as a teacher in Hong Kong, until I realised I couldn’t have a job that didn’t revolve around writing. At that point I returned to the UK and took up an MA in international journalism. Since then I’ve had just about every print media role you can think of, and the entire time print media has been in its death throes. That’s quite a concerning correlation, when I think about it.

When and how did you first hear about climate change – do you remember what you thought?

I first heard about climate change in the 1980s, when I was in primary school. Our teachers did a good job of scaring us into being little activists. That’s never really gone away. I also understood from a young age that climate change is indivisible from human injustice, probably thanks to my dad [the epidemiologist Norman J. Vetter]. I get annoyed when people talk about “saving the planet”. We’re saving ourselves! Shoutout to Dana Fisher, there.

You write for Forbes – how did that gig come about?

I began writing for Forbes when I returned to the UK in 2019. I’d been in media and publishing for about 12 years by that point, but wanted to focus solely on climate. At that point I had the means, motive and opportunity to completely reconfigure my career in a media industry that I felt was becoming increasingly frivolous – so I went for it.

You’re pretty prolific on social media – what do you get out of it (positive and negative) and what would you like to see “climate people” doing more of – or less of – on Bluesky etc?

Yes, I post too much. It’s probably a net harm to me in all sorts of ways, but I generally try to highlight issues that I feel need attention, and I try to do so in a responsible way without being boring about it. I’m perpetually conflicted about how useful any of this is; I, like many of us, am just figuring it out as we go along.

What other projects are you involved in?

I’m trying to juggle a dozen projects while treading water. My approach is far too headless chicken. And to pay the bills I ghostwrite and do copyediting. 

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is everything is gonna be peachy keen through to 10 is “Mad Max scenarios look like The Sound of Music before the Nazis turn up”, where do you think we will be in 2050?
From a self-centred, short-termist, northern European perspective, I’m hopeful that European agriculture doesn’t collapse. There are indications that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation might be more robust than we thought, which might be a reprieve, though we absolutely shouldn’t be banking on this.

The one thing we can be sure of is we’re heading into a less safe, less stable future. I’m sorry to say that that means most of us are going to be struggling a lot more, while a few very wealthy fraudsters will continue to grab what they can. To sustain ourselves I think we’re going to need to rediscover the meaning of community, and what’s actually important, rather than what we’ve been inculcated to believe is important.

Bonus – anything else you’d like to say.

Something I really appreciate about All Our Yesterdays is that, via history, it emphasises aspects of the climate crisis that are overlooked – namely the cultural and the social aspects, which is where I believe all the most important fights are being fought. People always claim the biggest hurdle to climate action is politics, but they’re wrong: it’s culture. Andrew Breitbart, the most appalling figure, was right when he said politics is downstream from culture. Liberal politicians almost universally do not understand this, which is a big reason why we’re facing the crises we’re facing.