Categories
Japan Kyoto Protocol

June 3,  2002 – Japan ratifies Kyoto Protocol

On this day June 3, 2002

Japan ratifies Kyoto – followed in 2013 by a slashing of ambition.

http://treealerts.org/type/alerts/2013/11/international-frustration-as-japanese-slash-climate-ambition/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm.  As of 2026, 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 Japan had suggested something called “pledge and review” in mid-1991 as a way of breaking the logjam around American intransigence on a climate treaty, and then Japan must have stuck its hand up at some point in 95 to say, “hey, we will host the third COP,” knowing that the third COP would be the consequential one where the Berlin mandate was supposed to reach its apotheosis. So the Japanese had been heavily involved, as you’d expect a middle power to be. I don’t know why it took the Japanese Diet five years from the end or four and a half years from the end of December 97 through to June of 2002 to ratify. So I will look that up. It’s a little bit interesting, because you’d assume they’d want to force the pace, but there will have been, of course, fierce fights within the Japanese government, within Japanese elites over the costs of doing this. 

Remember, the Japanese economy was already quite energy efficient thanks to the aftermath of the first Oil Shock,, and therefore there wasn’t lots of “low hanging fruit” and therefore actual emission reductions were going to be perhaps a bit more expensive. There was also the question of, did you try and do more nuclear? Was there much scope for renewables, etc, etc. 

The specific context was that by this point, the Americans under Dick Cheney and his mascot, George W Bush, had very publicly pulled out of Kyoto. They had done that in March of 2001, and the Japanese must have known that Australia was not going to ratify. So maybe they held off in order to try and re inject some momentum. I don’t know that is speculation…

What I think we can learn is this: Your ignorance is the volume of a sphere, your knowledge the surface area.

What happened next: The Kyoto Protocol languished for a couple of years, but then, because the Russians wanted membership of the World Trade Organisation, the Europeans were able to persuade them to ratify Kyoto, which had no real costs for Russia. And so in early 2005 the Kyoto Protocol became international law, which meant that there would be a negotiation process for a sequel to Kyoto, which meant the Americans and the Australians especially had a problem.

Climate Policy

Volume 1, Issue 3, September 2001, Pages 343-362

Japanese ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Hiroshi Matsumura

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-3062(01)00023-7Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper discusses Japan’s quantitative Kyoto target in the context of the country’s socio-economic and political background and its desire to express international leadership. Japan’s initial negotiating target was developed as a compromise between domestic industrial considerations and its international ambitions, and was strengthened further under the pressures to achieve success at Kyoto.

The original projections relied heavily upon nuclear expansion that will not be realized. Though economic stagnation has helped emissions to decline from their mid-1990s peak, it has also reduced the attention devoted to climate change and the willingness to bear costs, and Japan’s commitment remains daunting. Japanese bureaucrats and diplomats are called to work closer together and in an integrated manner in order to develop a new, more realistic policy package for achieving their target. This report analyses various scenarios for additional policies for Japan, including fuel switching, carbon taxation and emissions trading, and concludes that the introduction of gas in the context of energy market liberalization is a key possibility. It also considers the sink and the nuclear energy issues both of high importance for the country.

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

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

References

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, 1996 – Business Council of Australia versus even the idea of a carbon tax – All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Categories
Australia

June 2, 2012 – RIP Deni Greene

On this day June 2nd, 2012 Deni Greene died.

Greene had done some of the early economic modelling (1990) about how Australia could cut emissions and better off. The work was ignored, and then swamped by corporate bullshit…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm.  As of 2026, 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  Deni Greene had come to Australia at some point in the 70s or 80s as an economist and in the battles over the economic responses to the greenhouse effect, as it was then called, in 1989-91 did a lot of economic modelling, especially around energy efficiency, to show that it would be possible and in fact beneficial, to take strong action. The pro-coal ministries were not impressed, partly, I think, because of the argument, probably also because she was, in fact, only a woman. 

And by 91 PricewaterhouseCoopers had been commissioned to release or to produce a whole bunch of other reports, and the modelling wars were underway. 

What I think we can learn is this: it’s now almost 40 years of failure on climate change, and we seem to have learned nothing, and we seem to be incapable of learning anything, if at the micro, meso or macro level. But pretty soon, we will be learning – and the lesson today is how to die.  

What happened next:  I don’t know what Greene did with the rest of her life, after the early 90s, but it must have been pretty painful to watch all the shit unfold, but that is what happens to people, isn’t it,

Vale Deni Greene – consumer representative

The Bob Brown Foundation has set up the ‘Deni Greene’ awards, btw.

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

March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

October 4, 1990 – “Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder”

References

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).

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 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1977 – Australian scientists SCOPE the climate problem – All Our Yesterdays

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

June 2, 2002 – Low carbon spaces, eh… SDC RIP – All Our Yesterdays

June 2, 2005 – Climate change will not, in fact, be Terminated – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 1, 2008 – Shadow environment minister jumps from plane.

Eighteen years ago on this day June 1,  a real stunt filled the airwaves.

Shadow minister throws himself out of a plane

https://www.greghunt.com.au/PDF/flinderscommunity2008/GHSpring2008Community.pdf

And 

By Glen Atwell

FLINDERS MP Greg Hunt joined Australia’s oldest parachutist, Jim Brierley, in a parachute jump over Tooradin at the weekend to highlight the freefall of Australia’s solar industry.

83-year-old Mr Brierley lives at Phillip Island in the Flinders electorate and wrote to Mr Hunt earlier this year, inviting him to skydive with the Tooradin-based Commando Skydivers.

Mr Hunt accepted the invitation immediately.

“I leapt at the chance. I had done a static-line parachute jump – where the parachute opens automatically – when I was about 17 but had always wanted to experience a skydive,” he said.

Mr Hunt, who made the jump with tandem master Dave Boulter, described the experience as “sheer exhilaration”.

“We were lucky in that the day was pretty overcast but we managed to find a break in the clouds that lasted just long enough for me to make the jump.

“We jumped from 7000 feet, which was above the cloud level, and dived through the clouds for about 20 seconds before we activated the parachute. Twenty seconds doesn’t sound like a long time but it’s an eternity when you are hurtling towards the ground at something like 120 miles an hour. It is sheer exhilaration. I loved every second of it.

“Jim jumped out of the plane just before me and made an effortless landing, He is an amazing gentleman and an inspiration to us all.”

Mr Hunt used the jump to highlight the plight of the solar panel industry which he said has been sent into freefall since the Rudd Government imposed a means test on the popular solar panel rebate scheme.

BERNARD KEANE ON “PERPETUAL PRESENT” AND PETER GARRETT

Oddly, this is the Greg Hunt who throughout 2008 opportunistically joined the Greens in bagging Garrett for not rolling the solar panels program out quickly enough, after Garrett introduced a means test on the solar panel rebate to slow the remarkable demand for the program.  In June 2008, Hunt went skydiving — anyone remember that? — to demonstrate that the solar industry was in “freefall — but unlike me it doesn’t have a soft landing ahead of it”.

Peter Garrett and the perpetual present of politics

Also Hunt on the Great Barrier Reef…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  As of 2026, 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 Australian political elites had been aware of the carbon dioxide problem since the 1970s but had not really done anything until forced to by a combination of scientific lobbying and especially public pressure, which exploded in 1988. And in 1990 a student, I think, at University of Melbourne, did his honours thesis on carbon pricing, and 18 years later, that student was the shadow Environment Minister Greg Hunt,

The specific context was that there had been fierce battles over Emissions Trading/ putting a price on carbon dioxide. And from the end of 2006 onwards, there had been running open battles. By mid 2008 the conservative Party, the Liberal party’s fragile consensus on the need to respond to carbon dioxide build up was beginning to fracture. They were still under the leadership, such as it was of Brendan Nelson, but Malcolm Turnbull was waiting in the wings as leader of the opposition.

What I think we can learn is this:  these stupid stunts, they are not cupid stunts, but something else we learned that politicians will do pretty much anything for a headline. 

What happened next:  

A month later, the retreat began…

Malcolm Turnbull became leader of the opposition and tried to forge some sort of deal with Kevin Rudd, the Labor Prime Minister. But Rudd was too much enjoying watching Turnbull twist in the wind, and so carbon pricing did not get passed, and Tony Abbott became leader of the opposition, and then, God help us, Prime Minister. And was a complete failure, but he can point to having abolished the carbon price as his signal achievement. Hunt was Minister for the Environment in this and brought about a shadow Emissions Trading Scheme. (See Leonore Taylor in the Guardian for more on this).

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

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

August 27, 2013 – absurd claim of Nobel-prize winners’ support for Liberal non-policy is debunked.

References

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

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

June 1, 1970 – Public Relations versus Democracy and Ecology – All Our Yesterdays

June 1, 1989 – Tony Blair versus carbon pricing – All Our Yesterdays

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

May 31, 2007 – Shergold Report released 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 31st, 2007 the Australian ‘Shergold Report’ was released:

The Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading releases the ‘Shergold Report’ which recommends Australia develop an emissions trading scheme.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian political elites had been warned repeatedly about climate change from the late 1970s onwards. The Howard government from 1996 had chosen to resist any and all domestic and international action on climate that would either inconvenience rich people and fossil fuel companies or even potentially lead to their inconvenience at some point in the future. So, for example, Howard resisted all calls to ratify the Kyoto Protocol even though it would mean nothing substantive, because the next deal might and once you’ve given in on one thing, you have to give in on the next, or it’s easier for you to be forced not to give.

The specific context was that in September, October of 2006 public awareness of concern about climate change spiked because of the Millennium drought, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, (he visited Australia) and a bunch of other factors. Howard’s resistance to climate change action or even the investigation of it became untenable, and so Howard did what any politician will do. He appointed a band, a panel led by a reliable civil servant, Peter Shergold. The panel was, of course, stacked with the usual suspects, fossil fuel hacks and CEOs and so forth, and didn’t have scientists or civil society people who would ask awkward questions. And Howard’s plan, I think, was for the Shergold report to be a fig leaf behind which he could hide ahead of the upcoming Federal election. He wanted to be able to use to wave the Shergold report around to show that he was willing to do something on climate change, or to countenance doing something on climate change, and so neutralise one of the rhetorical weapons that the Labour opposition leader Kevin Rudd had in his armoury, 

What I think we can learn from this. that you can’t really understand the provenance and purpose of so-called “fact-finding” reports without understanding the politics and the motivations behind it. 

What happened next. The Shergold report did not function as Howard hoped it would, and Howard was on a hiding to nothing, because people wanted actual action on climate change, and they thought that Kevin Rudd would deliver, or they hoped he would – poor deluded fools. See also. Chris Rootes, “first climate election” published in the journal Environmental Politics…

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 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

May 31, 1981 – RIP Barbara Ward – All Our Yesterdays

 May 31, 1994 – Climate change and Frankenstein Syndrome…

May 31, 1995 – newly-minted MCA meets with Keating… – All Our Yesterdays

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Categories
United Kingdom

May 30, 1980 – Report of the Climate Impact Investigations working group…

Forty six years ago, on this day, May 30th, 1980, a subgroup of civil servants is looking at climate impacts (nb this is more broad than carbon dioxide build-up, which was not, in the eyes of many, the only show in town).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the mid-1970s the Met Office had found it had to work harder to monopolise (or control) the debates on climate impacts for the UK.

The specific context was that by this time it was clear that the Thatcher government was supremely uninterested in questions of preparations for increased climate extremes.

What I think we can learn from this is that after you lose a battle (as the pro-action forces had in 1979-80) there is a refractory period…

What happened next. 

The issue was there in the undergrowth, growing, but did not ‘break through’ until 1988.

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 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

 May 30, 1996 – Minerals Council investment pays off, again…

May 30, 2007 – Kevin Rudd pledges to ratify Kyoto, set emissions target and create an ETS

Categories
Activism United States of America

May 29, 2025 – Daughter sues Exxon for mother’s heat death

One year ago, on this day, May 29th, 2025,

May 29 2025 case filed against Exxon etc by daughter of woman who died of hyperthermia in 2021 heat dome – https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2025/20250529_docket-25-2-15986-8-SEA_complaint.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 427ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the late 70s, Exxon was well aware of the carbon dioxide threat, and had even helped oceanographers take samples of CO2 on their oil tankers, and had made many predictions and presentations for the C suite. But Exxon decided in the mid 1980s that it would change its stance on the reality of carbon dioxide build up, and it became one of the chief proponents and funders of outfits like the Global Climate Coalition, established in 1989 to resist both domestic US and international climate policy. And Exxon also funded various denialist groups, so much so that in 2006 the UK Royal Society had published an open letter asking them to knock it off. 

Exxon was also instrumental in the Dubya Bush White House 2001 to 2008 especially with their apparatchik in the CEQ writing climate policy and spreading denial.   

The specific context was that we’re now getting the long predicted weather anomalies, disasters sometimes happening much sooner than the scientists had thought, because, well, that’s nonlinear patterns for you. And what do you do when you’ve been hit by one of these well, you sue, if you can. You use court to try and do what the politics hasn’t been able to do. 

What I think we can learn from this is that most court cases fail, but that doesn’t mean you don’t use it as one of your venues for seeking justice, I guess. 

What happened next. 

On April 9 this year –

State Court in Washington Denied Fossil Fuel Defendants’ Request to Stay Case Pending Supreme Court’s Resolution of Boulder

Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings denied.

A trial court in Washington State denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The Washington trial court found that the outcome of the Boulder proceedings was “far from certain,” including whether the Court would issue a substantive ruling and whether the Court would resolve the issues in this case. The court also found that a potentially 14-month stay could prejudice the plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery, that the public interest weighed against the stay, and that potential prejudice to the defendants was mitigated by the fact that some documents had already been preserved and some discovery had already been conducted in other similar cases.

https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/leon-v-exxon-mobil-corp_b93f

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 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

May 29, 1989- “We will all be flooded” –

May 29, 1992- ANAO says it will look at DPIE’s energy management programme 

May 29, 2007 “Climate Clever” ad campaign in attempt to save John Howard – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

May 29, 2007 – Howard derides Stern as “English”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 29th, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard plays the “he’s an Englishman” card versus economist Nick Stern… 

However, in a Parliamentary debate in May 2007, the Prime Minister suggested the [Stern] review was Eurocentric propaganda. He stated that the report of the Government’s Task Group on Emissions Trading:

… will not be a grab bag of proposals taken holus-bolus from a report written by an Englishman for European conditions and designed to promote the political objectives of the British government. That is what the Stern report is all about. Stern is not the biblical scholar of climate change that is posited by those who sit opposite. Stern has written from the perspective of an Englishman, from the European circumstance and from the European point of view. 73

Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 29 May 2007, 48 (John Howard, Prime Minister).

Macintosh, 2008 page 66-7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that John Howard, as prime minister, had spent the 10 years from 1996 to 2006 amplifying and extending the previous Keating Labor government’s hostility to climate change action. Howard had painted himself into a corner, and it was understood that he wasn’t going to be able to paint himself out, or leap over the wet paint, or whatever the metaphor might be. 

The specific context was that  the UK Labour Tony Blair government had asked a World Bank economist called Nick Stern to produce a report on the “economics of climate change.” This was largely to overcome Treasury intransigence on the question of climate policy. The report, the Stern review, was released in late 2006.

It was at this point, not entirely unrelated, that John Howard had had to perform a U-turn and announce the creation of the ‘Shergold Taskforce’, which would look into the economics of emissions trading.  

What I think we can learn from this  is that even the best politicians – and Howard was a good politician. I do not mean that as a compliment – run out of steam and run out of road, and by this time, Howard had. Now, very rarely does a politician know when to leave the stage. If Howard had announced his retirement in 2006 his legacy, his “reputation”, would have been assured. But they all come to believe their own propaganda. They all come to believe that they are somehow indispensable. So… no one is indispensable. 

What happened next. 

Here we are 20 years later, at the beginning of the Fafocene.  Economics has not saved us. What we needed was more, but we didn’t know how to get it. And the opposition to ‘it’ was extremely deep-seated and almost insurmountable.  

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 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

May 29, 1989- “We will all be flooded” –

May 29, 1992- ANAO says it will look at DPIE’s energy management programme 

Categories
Activism Event Report

Getting to the NEB of the issue: The National Emergency Briefing and what is to be done.

Last November eight experts made short presentations to hundreds of people gathered in Westminster Hall, London.

The topic? The climate and biodiversity emergencies that have been unfolding for decades now (the biodiversity crisis for centuries, tbf).

It was the National Emergency Briefing on climate & nature.

Well, now that has been turned into a documentary, with film showings in Europe and the rest of the world being encouraged. I went to a film showing last week in Adelaide.

In this short (ymmv) blog post I am going to talk about the film and what is missing from it, and what needs to be done now, (without holding out more than net zero hope that it will be).

What is good in the film

One is that it is short – 50 minutes is a nice round number.

All of the presentations are good (several are better than good). The presenters don’t waffle, they don’t batter people over the head with jargon.

What is cringe

NB I am not the target demographic, but the ‘Gogglebox’ side of things (cutting away to reaction shots, ‘chummy’ conversations on sofas with performative swearing was …. cringe. A mix of celebs (Deborah Meaden, Jennifer Saunders) and Joe and Jane Punter (mercifully not all white home counties). I understand why they did it, and maybe it is landing with other people. What the hell do I know.

What is ‘bad’/problematic in the film

I don’t know the order of the presentations, I suspect it more or less followed what appears in the film. The first five are ‘here is the nature of the shit we are in’. The last two are much more ‘but things are being done/can be done’. I TOTALLY get that you need to have some kind of arc, some kind of call to action. But you also need to remind people of the scale of the challenge and the need for much much more action at all levels of society. My fear is that those last two presentations will allow people to tick the box marked ‘I at least informed myself and anyway, things could get better.’ I wish there had been some sort of acknowledgement of this dynamic (which has played out repeatedly already).  Which brings us to

What is missing

Fifty minutes is not long, and if you’re trying to give all the speakers a fair shake, then, understandably you are going to end up with a certain “present-ism.”


But we really need to step back and see three things.


First, that the biodiversity crisis has been going on for a very very long time (hundreds of years). I may be wrong, but I didn’t hear anyone say ‘Sixth Extinction’.

Second, we should remember that Thatcher was told about carbon dioxide build-up repeatedly, from 1979 (that’s not a typo) onwards until finally making her pivotal speech in September 1988, and that until very recently there was an all-party consensus on the need for ‘urgent’ climate action.  And that there really wasn’t, once you take out the accounting tricks, much real UK action (Prof Kevin Anderson – a friend – nailed this, as he always does). So, it’s not as if our Lords and Masters weren’t dimly aware (and some of them are very dim) of the issue. It may be that information is not the actual problem here. 

Third that there have been repeated spasms (or, if you’re being less pejorative and more shiny happy) “waves” of concern about environmental matters.  The first big one was in the late 1960s through to the early 1970s.  Then another one between 1988 to 1992, then another from 2006 to 2009, and then one from 2018 to about 2020, when Covid came along and fried everyone’s brain. Alongside this we have seen states learn how to insulate themselves from public pressures. 


I have written about this a lot.  The two pieces I wish folks would read were these

There’s a third article I think is okay – Dear New Climate Activist (written 2018). And if you really want to go down the rabbit hole there are these about XR’s moment of maximum danger and a debate about whether it has (well, had) the right tactics. 

The point is, that social movements really struggle to sustain themselves, but withOUT an energised and engaged civil society, then governments and corporations do business as usual. The same business as usual that is wiping us out. See this from BHP, the world’s biggest mining corporation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2026/may/25/bhp-files-internal-memo-revealed

George Monbiot’s latest column (May 27) is about the current government insulating itself from all critiques, all civil society input. It’s a good column but it too (for the same reasons as the film, mostly) also neglects to join the historical dots. There 

So, two final things.

The film calls on people to do three things

1.Spread the word

2. Join a group near you

3. Keep the pressure on the government


Hmmm.  That number two is – for a whole host of reasons – really really difficult. Groups fall apart, fingers and hearts get burned, and not in a ‘phoenix will rise’ kinda way, but in a ‘where shall we spread the ashes while singing a dirge?’ kinda way. If we are not honest abou t


The idea of film showings is great, but I have real concerns about how well this is executed.

The film showings MUST be short (intro, 50 minutes and then at most 40 minutes of other people, including a well-facilitated Q&A that is not (I repeat, NOT) dominated by speeches-’disguised’-as-questions from the usual suspects.

There are some really simple facilitation/meeting design techniques that can help with this, but I don’t see them being used anywhere, and I have my own reasons for believing it won’t happen (call me a cynic).

From 2014 – Meetings are institutionally sexist

From 2017 – We’ve got to stop meeting like this.

In their absence, new people will not get a word in edgeways, and the whole thing will be dominated by the usual suspects with – likely – the usual results.

(See also the aftermath of “The Age of Stupid” in 2008, “This Changes Everything” in 2014, Don’t Look Up etc etc (there have been some so bad I have tried to expunge them from my memory, a la Men In Black and the memory wand thing). There is an article to be written – “Documentary films/satires as tools of social change? Well, they could be, but not on their own…”)

Further reading

Interview with Abi Perrin: “academia isn’t responding robustly to a world that’s literally and metaphorically on fire”

Does anyone want me to do a seven minute “presentation I would have given at the NEB if they had asked me” post? If so, I will. If not, I am not sure I can be bothered (yes, I know I should use better bait when fishing for affirmation).

Categories
Australia

May 28, 2001 – ABC “The World Today” on climate change

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, May 28th, 2001, the ABC reported  on the Kyoto Protocol…

The World Today Archive – Monday, 28 May , 2001

Reporter: David Mark

JOHN HIGHFIELD: And now on The World Today let’s go to the third in our series of stories on the global warming crisis. It’s now been established of course that the greenhouse effect is more than just fanciful scientific theory.

In March, scientists in Britain published the first evidence that global warming is happening as a result of the greenhouse gas pollution of our planet. And the impact could be catastrophic unless remedial measures are taken urgently.

The United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted the world’s temperatures could rise by almost six degrees centigrade over the next century leading to the flooding of many island nations, particularly those in the south and western Pacific in our region, as well as climate chaos, including prolonged droughts and violent storms.

Well, two of the world’s worst offenders on a per capita basis when it comes to producing carbon dioxide (CO2) are the United States and Australia of course. And we seem to be stepping away from things and the International Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which it was hoped to change the world’s attitude.

Well, in this third story, David Mark looks at the green record of our political parties in this federal election year.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that there had been a big wave of ‘act or we are doomed’ documentaries and programmes in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  (And, to be fair, similar ones in the late 1960s.)

The specific context was that, as per the May 20 post, there are ABC documentaries about climate change, because there is a recent hook i.e. the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, which has just come out. And also it’s politically salient, because President George W. Bush has pulled out of Kyoto, and people were waiting to see what Australian Prime MinisterJohn Howard would say. Howard is at this point, playing for time, because there is going to be a federal election at some point in late 2001 and Howard can’t afford to piss off and galvanise small g and (large g) Green voters against him.

What I think we can learn from this is, again, the media, or bits of the media, were relatively responsible when they could be, but it didn’t help the wider picture, because the social movements aren’t there to harness the energy, anger, fear, of individuals (because that’s really hard to do).

Everyone understandably wants to vote for the right person and leave it in their hands because they’re busy, because politics is – as per Max Weber – “the slow, boring of hard boards”, and it can be boring and frustrating, and you just want to get on with your life. Unfortunately, while you’re getting on with your life, the emissions are climbing, the atmospheric concentrations are climbing, and then before you know it, the impacts are arriving. And by the time the impacts have arrived, it’s pretty late, too late, I would say, to do much about it. And this dilemma was understood in the late 70s, and it’s throughout William Barbat’s CO2 newsletter. 

What happened next. 

We didn’t do the work, and future generations are stuffed. Also, all the other species. Oh well…

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 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

May 28, 1969 – “Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley

May 28, 1982 – “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity” – All Our Yesterdays

 May 28, 1990 – “Global Warming is really here” (IPCC First Assessment Report) 

Categories
Australia

May 27, 2003 – Albo makes all the right noises about Kyoto

Twenty three years ago, on this day, May 27th, 2003 Labor MP Anthony Albanese seconds Kyoto Protocol legislation in Parliament,

MEDIA RELEASE: Anthony Albanese – 26 May 2003

Today, the Federal Member for Grayndler Anthony Albanese MP was pleased to second a Private Members Bill in Federal Parliament designed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.

Moved by the Shadow Minister for Sustainability & the Environment Kelvin Thomson MP, the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Bill 2003 will give legal effect to Australia’s Kyoto target and ensure Australian industry can take advantage of emerging new markets when the treaty comes into international force.

http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/albanese-seconds-kyoto-protocol-legislation-in-parliament

“Back at home, the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Kelvin Thomson, introduced a private member’s bill for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on 26 May 2003. As well as calling for the ratification of the Protocol, the Bill sets out requirements for the Commonwealth Environment Minister to prepare systems for involvement in international emissions trading schemes, a National Climate Change Action Plan, and imposes an obligation on the Government to ensure that Australia’s target of 108% of its 1990 emissions is not exceeded during the period 2008 to 2012.”

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NatEnvLawRw/2003/2.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 306ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Prime Minister John Howard had resisted Kyoto ratification, despite an incredibly generous deal having been negotiated by his Environment minister. In June 2002 Howard had, on World Environment Day, said he wasn’t going to ratify because it wasn’t in Australia’s economic interest.

And you had a young MP called Anthony Albanese who was part of the Opposition front bench, and they were trying to “punch the bruise.” They were trying to say that Labour would be better on the environment and appeal to some of the green voters who were deserting them for the Green Party. 

The specific context was that we were still deep in the pretending phase. Completely unlike now.

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians make all the right noises early on in their career. Once they finally get into power, if they do well, it’s a story. It’s the sort of thing you see with Tony Blair in the late 1980s – it’s amusing and dispiriting. 

What happened next. Well, Albanese did eventually become Prime Minister. And guess what? We are not saved.

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 27, 1927 – Ford ceases to produce the Model-T

May 27, 1971 – Australia gets a Minister of the Environment 

May 27, 1973 – World Council of Churches wrings its hands

May 27, 1996 – Not just a river in Egypt – denial in #Australia, organised, ramifying…

May 27, 2025 – Infantilising critics