November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock
On this day, November 2 in 2009,
Abbott had dropped his daughters at the bus stop and was driving back across Roseville Bridge at about 7.30am when he turned on 2GB and heard Malcolm Turnbull having a set-to with Alan Jones. If you listen to a tape of that 2 November 2009 exchange now, you hear Turnbull refusing to kowtow to Jones, who becomes hysterically agitated about the ‘hoax’ of global warming and a secret deal by world leaders which will bleed $50 billion from Australia and send it off to South America. Turnbull is sharp with Jones once or twice, asking to be heard, reminding him his heroes Margaret Thatcher and John Howard wanted action on global warming: ‘Don’t you think,’ asks the leader of the Opposition, ‘you sound like the old lady who says the whole world is mad except for thee and me, and I have my doubts about thee?’
Abbott thought Turnbull’s leadership was terminal at that moment. What he was hearing was bar-room brawl between his leader and the guru of a great swathe of the Liberal Party. This was no way to deal with Alan Jones. Turnbull wasn’t showing the necessary respect. It would cause immense damage.
(Marr, 2012:73)
[see also Paul Kelly “Triumph and Demise” on same period – Turnbull trying to get CPRS through with Rudd enjoying his pain too much to bother making a deal. You never hear the ALP talk about that – instead they like to bash the Greens…]
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 385ish ppm. At time of writing it was 41ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
John Howard had resisted any climate action for as long as possible, but finally in late 2006 had switched too a fallback of asking a civil servant to look at emissions trading – the Shergold Report, as much of a u-turn as you were going to get. He then got blown away in the November 2007 elections by Kevin “I’m from Queensland, I’m here to help” Rudd. Turnbull had overthrown first post-Howard Lib leader, Brendan Nelso, brought some Libs with him, not others….
Why this matters.
We should always be alert to “but for a nail the battle was lost” and just how mad-as-a-box-of-frogs-left-on-the-back-seat-of-a-Ute the internal dynamics of political parties can be.
On this day, November 1 in 1975, climate scientist Stephen Schneider tried to keep folks eyes on the prize, given how many various books and hypotheses were already being thrown around
On the Carbon Dioxide–Climate Confusion Stephen H. Schneider J. Atmos. Sci. (1975) 32 (11): 2060–2066.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
By the mid 1970s, a cottage industry had grown up around “weird weather.”
Why this matters.
We need to remember that there were claims and counter-claims, some outlandish
What happened next?
By the late 70s it was pretty damn clear that it was a carbon dioxide problem…
On this day in 1989, a third of a century ago, a new organisation called Greenhouse Action Australia was formed. It cemented Australia’s place as a climate movement leader. Dan Cass explains…
Greenhouse Action Australia (GAA) was the first non-government organisation (NGO) dedicated to climate action in Australia, and one of the first in the world. Its formation was supported by the federal government, in particular Barry O Jones, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. His sponsorship helped it recruit a powerful board and funding from federal and Victorian Labor governments.
In the late 1980s climate activism wore an ambitious vision. We believed that by educating the public and the elite we could bring about a deep, equitable transformation of humanity’s relationship to the Earth and to each other. GAA rode a rising tide of ambition following the UN’s Brundtland Commission report in 1987, which called for ‘ecologically sustainable development’.
GAA grew out of a very Australian experiment in ecological literacy called ‘Greenhouse 88’. This was a network of conferences in ten cities across this vast land. Some 8000 citizens learned about the science of ‘global warming’, debated consequences and imagined solutions. It was popular but not populist; scientists drove the debate. There was no kowtowing to the ‘two sides’ narrative we endured for most of the following three decades.
Greenhouse 88 used video links between venues (thanks to Telstra, then publicly-owned), so it required fewer than 20 flights (thanks, Qantas) to bring experts to each room of the continent-wide congress. The ‘greenhouse’ became a household word.
1988 was a defining moment. The spectre of planetary peril hit global consciousness like an asteroid. An international conference in Toronto had called for a 20 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions worldwide by the year 2005. (The IPCC had warned an immediate 60% reduction was necessary to stabilise atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.)
On 23 June 1988, Dr James Hansen from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies made headlines with dramatic testimony to the United States Senate. He said the time had come when the US must immediately reduce greenhouse emissions:
Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming…It is already happening now.
Australia’s Greenhouse 88 was about more than scientific expertise. It was shaped by a brand of futurist optimism you might expect to find in Silicon Valley. It was hosted by the staid but reputable CSIRO collaborating with the federal Labor government’s funky new Commission for the Future (CFF). Minister Jones had created the CFF in 1985 to look at how the country could predict and get ahead of technological trends. Based in an old bluestone church building in Drummond Street, at the edge of Melbourne’s CBD, it was chaired by Phillip Adams; a leading atheist among his many other qualities. The acting director was Professor Ian Lowe. The Greenhouse 88 convenor was Phil Noyce, a teacher on secondment from the Victorian Department of Education.
The reason Greenhouse 88 put Australia at the forefront was because it went beyond expert testimony to mass mobilisation. The congress concluded; ‘There is now sufficient evidence to accept that the greenhouse effect is a reality’. It called for the formation of a new national organisation to push governments to take action.
GAA was created to build knowledge and power. Its constitution included a branch structure to encourage members to organise in their communities. The Inaugural Council was a powerhouse, with the former Liberal Premier of Victoria, Sir Rupert ‘Dick’ Hamer as President. The sitting Labor premier of Victoria Joan Kirner was a member. Others included former Labor Deputy of WA Premier Mal Bryce, Christine Milne (Tasmanian MP, later leader of the Australian Greens), Ian Lowe, Jill Reichstein (Secretary, Australian Association of Philanthropy), Tricia Caswell (Assistant secretary, Victorian Trades Hall Council), Dr Barrie Pittock (CSIRO) and Phillip Adams.
I joined the staff of GAA in 1991 as electronic information officer. I was studying the philosophy of science and botany at the University of Melbourne. With Apple Australia’s sponsorship our office was full of the new computers. We used IT to minimise carbon footprint and maximise information management and educational impact. Our members got their own email addresses and Internet training so they could access the bulletin board of climate science and policy information which I administered. We made audiovisual materials for schools on CD-ROM.
It was exciting to work there. We felt the world was about to change. The science was clear; truth would win. I had read the (first) assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and cried. It was obvious that we had but a couple of decades to shut down coal, oil and gas. I knew enough politics to understand it would be almost impossible to defeat such interests. But here I was in an organisation moving at lightspeed: building influence, harnessing expertise, developing global networks, all supported by government.
Our office was upstairs in a disused Victorian building at North Melbourne Primary School. One day I was answering the phones and took a call from someone at Cray Research, the leading manufacturer of supercomputers. He asked if Cray could be the major commercial sponsor of our upcoming conference.
In the first issue of GAA’s Greenhouse Action newsletter (March 1991) Dick Hamer’s column quoted Dr Mostafa Tolba, Director of the UN Environment Program; ‘We shall win – or lose – the climate struggle in the first years of the 1990s.’ We faced the certain prospect of civilisational collapse; could GAA and the nascent global movement build power enough to force governments and business to listen?
Why it matters
Australia was a global leader but GAA’s greatest moment was yet to come. And soon enough, its demise.
On World Environment Day, 5 June 1989 the UN Environment Program admitted Greenhouse 88 to its Roll of Honour. The citation read ‘No other organisation or nation has so far conducted any comparable public awareness program on climate change.’ The amalgam of CSIRO and CFF, plus the catalyst of federal government support, had done something unique.
In December 1989 Phil attended the World Conference on Preparing for Climate Change in Cairo, hosted by the government of Egypt, UNEP and the Washington based Climate Institute. The Climate Institute’s director John Topping invited GAA to host their next big international conference in 1991, in Melbourne.
Greenhouse Action for the Nineties was duly held on 21 – 23 July 1991 in Melbourne’s Town Hall. The federal and state Labor governments and Melbourne City Council provided funding and other support. UNEP and The Climate Institute co-hosted. Its purpose was to build the movement in Australia but also to influence the negotiations for a Climate Change Convention to be agreed at the landmark Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio de Janiero, in June 1992.
It was amazing working on Greenhouse Action for the Nineties. My only previous experience of an international event was a Pugwash conference in the USSR in 1990. (It was a workshop at the Leningrad Youth Palace and a side event at the Leningrad Naval Academy, where I questioned the Commander of the Baltic Fleet about public attitudes towards the military and crashed a frigate in the Academy’s training pool.)
Thanks to significant preparatory work by GAA the conference discussed a broad range of issues in detail. The Australian Ambassador for the Environment, Sir Ninian Stephen, chaired the final plenary which ratified the eight-page Melbourne Greenhouse Action Declaration. Other federal officials helped, such as Industry Commissioner Tor Hundloe.
The Declaration was a radical document. It called for ‘a fundamental reappraisal of traditional approaches to virtually all aspects of human endeavour’. Energy was key. The Melbourne Declaration recommended ‘aggressive energy efficiency’ and ‘accelerated adoption of renewable energy technologies, many of which are already available (emphasis added)’.
Thanks to the breadth of expertise on the Council and Phil’s deep approach to change, the conference traversed issues that the climate movement would later downplay when we got distracted by a global price on carbon for a decade and more. The Declaration called for ‘more creative jobs and more productive recreation’, along with community empowerment, urban farming and redesign of broad acre agriculture, increase walking and cycling, modal shift from trucks to rail for freight, life-cycle driven product design, promotion of community media and building bilateral ties between local ethnic communities and their countries of origin to spur grassroots action.
I was among nine GAA members who went to the Earth Summit in June 1992 to take the Melbourne Declaration agenda forward, including Louise Crossley, Alan Roger and Phil Noyce.
Even corporations who, by the mid-nineties would back Australia’s ‘Greenhouse Mafia’, were on board with GAA in 1990 and 1991. The preparatory workshop for Greenhouse Action for the Nineties was attended by oil supermajors Shell and BP; miners BHP and CRA; chemical multinational ICA; and ALCOA, manufacturer of aluminium (or ‘congealed electricity’, as former PM Paul Keating called it).
I think the innovation and success of Greenhouse 88 and GAA came about due to a combination of particular individuals and structural factors. Ecologically sustainable development was in the air and global warming was, as now, its most pressing and controversial dimension. Labor was in power federally and under PM Bob Hawke it was struggling to adopt a credible climate policy. It ultimately failed to adopt the Toronto target and after Paul Keating replaced Hawke as PM in December 1991 he shamefully decided against attending the Rio Summit, sending Environment Minister Ross Kelly and Trade Minister John Kerin. However, the government was forced by the environment movement and the rise of the ‘green’ independent MPs in Tasmania to at least debate the issue. In this context, individuals could make a big difference and three in particular did.
Science minister Barry Jones was a brilliant polymath who applied himself to complex, structural policy challenges brought about as technology advances. (In 1982 he had published Sleepers, Wake!: Technology and the Future of Work). Environment Minister Kelly was accountable for climate policy and took a minimal position but Jones had the remit and the inclination to vigorously explore the science and its implications. Barry retrofitted Pascal’s wager on the existence of God; “If we act as if it matters and it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. But if we act as if it doesn’t matter and it matters, then it really matters”.
Phil Adams came to his role as CFF chairman after a highly successful career in advertising and film which meant he could afford to be bold and his personality would not let him do otherwise. He backed Ian Lowe and Phil Noyce to take the science to the people. He even offered his advertising nous to help Noyce engage with the TV networks to sell the apocalypse on prime time.
Noyce, who went from convenor of Greenhouse 88 to founding Director of GAA was kind, creative, passionate and visionary. He confronted how little time we had left to save the world. He was a grassroots democrat and an international diplomat.
GAA shows that ambition and deep thinking are crucial for ecological movements. We must be ambitious. If there were intellectual blind spots to our work back then I think they fall in two key areas. Firstly, we should have created a national plan to bring down the cost of solar PV and lobbied for it. The keystone of the bridge to an ecologically sustainable future is cheap solar electricity.
Secondly, we failed to read the rise of the anti-science movement on the right. We should have focused less on explaining the science and more on building an army to defend the scientists. Nobody could have predicted the success of the right’s war on science and rationality.
Around this time I went to a workshop in a fine Victorian mansion hosted by Kenneth Myer. Someone sat me next to the director of a conservative Melbourne-based think tank. As we listened to the speakers and enjoyed the lunch he became drunk and told me what he really thought about climate change. ‘The scientists’, he said, ‘are prostitutes.’
My mistake was seeing him as a mad man. To be sure, what he said was crazy, but the salient point is that he was respected enough to get millions of dollars in sponsorship from money, media and mining barons. Their money gave his views currency. He was visionary in his way, telegraphing the future.
The biggest factor that taking Australia from climate hero to climate criminal was that the Liberal Party won the federal election in 1996. The new PM, John Howard, was a radical climate denier (and still is). He led the federal Liberal Party into cul-de-sac of reality-denial from which it never emerged. As late as 2021 the Liberal government was trying to entrench coal in the National Electricity Market.
What happened next
After the Rio Earth Summit the ‘Greenhouse Mafia’ waged war on science. Politics changed and the backlash against ecology grew. GAA thrived under Labor governments but withered when Liberals came to power. When Victorian Labor Premier Joan Kirner lost the election in October 1992 the new premier, Jeff Kennett, had no interest in joining her on GAA’s Council.
Kennett was a proud university dropout. An ex-soldier, his other career before parliament was in advertising. Kennett and John Howard were brilliant culture warriors, elites who maintained power by constructing an imagined elite who they blamed for the suffering of ordinary people.
Kennett once sent a proposal to captains of industry for them to fund a new think tank to take back the political debate. His proposal came in a hot pink folder. It complained that the sixties counterculture had dominated the academy and through that, the national conversation. Business could win back the people from the experts though the media and advertising. Already in the 1970s the right was creating the horror we live in now.
PM Howard’s conservative populism suited the era after the September 11 attacks. He exploited fear and ignorance, to become the second longest serving PM in Australia, in power until 2007, by which time the climate damage had been done.
After a few short years, GAA failed financially. That was mostly because of the withering of support from governments. But the executive and Treasurer also bore some responsibility, failing to trim the ambition of GAA’s agenda, or at least its budget, to match the new political era.
My dear friend Phil Noyce had coffee with me one day with tears in his eyes. He confessed the organisation was going bust. I too was heartbroken. I knew that if we didn’t turn around rising emissions in the nineties, the future was on the rocks.
As government funding for GAA tapered away the organisation faded. In 1995 Phil Noyce died suddenly from a heart attack, playing tennis. The end of GAA was tragic and his death doubly so. Christine Milne remembers him as the ‘glue’ of the new movement; anyone who wanted to do anything about climate in Australia always knew to start by asking Phil. In writing this piece I hope he gets the place in history that he deserves.
After the death of Phil and the election of John Howard, Australia’s thriving ecosystem for climate action in Australia fragmented. By the late 1990s the resources lobby, right-wing think tanks, conservative politicians and their media echo chamber had made climate change politically toxic at the national level. Australia became an international pariah.
For all the setbacks, mistakes and tragedy of the early nineties, I recall those days with fondness. I regularly wonder; what could we have done better? It was, as Bill McKibben wrote, in The End of Nature, an ‘unreal’ moment.
One evening during the Melbourne conference Phil took us staff to an Italian pizzeria on Rathdowne Street, North Carlton. We sat with rapporteurs including Ian Lowe, Jeremy Leggett and Bill Hare on either side of a long table stretching the length of the echoey restaurant. My new activist friend Danny Kennedy had come down from Sydney to volunteer. We took media calls on mobile phones, which were a serious novelty in 1991. We were doing an apprenticeship with the best and brightest, learning to reimagine the world. The owner took our orders and walked away leaving Phil looking bemused. Phil smiled and explained to us, ‘He just asked me, Are you real estate agents?’
Dan Cass is a senior advisor at The Australia Institute and the Clean Energy Investor Group and a research affiliate at the Sydney Environment Institute at the University of Sydney
On this day, October 31 in 1994, the ABC explained what was going on with Australian energy and climate policy.
“ABC Four Corners special on Monday when veteran ABC science reporter Gavin Gilchrist exposes an industry that has “failed dismally to match both the words and sentiment of national greenhouse response strategy”. Gilchrist looks at the Victorian model of electricity reform and the “white-anting” of national minimum energy performance standards – or MEPS – by manufactures and government.”
Fries. P. 1994. Insert. The Australian Financial Review, 28 October, p.3.
See also this in SA Greenhouse News #3
“At the ANZMEC meeting in September 1994, Ministers considered whether to proceed with mandatory MEPS, but did not agree to do so because of the position taken by the Victorian Minister for Energy, who was opposed to regulations of any kind, and who did not believe that the case for mandatory MEPS was strong enough to overcome the preference for ‘market forces’. This was a clear case of ideology getting in the way of rational policy making.”
And
The industry has since pointed out publicly (on the ABC’s Four Corners program on 31 October 1994) that the only practical and fair way to implement MEPS is through regulation, something which was never in dispute in all of the negotiations leading up to the ANZMEC meeting. The minimum energy performance standards proposal was ANZMEC’s first opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to the NGRS, and it conspicuously failed to do so. Whatever happens with MEPS now, the episode has demonstrated to the public and to the appliance industry how tenuous is the ANZMEC commitment to the NGRS, and how easy it is for individual State Ministers to delay or even derail its key programs.
from Feb 1995 Can the Future be Rescued report by The Australia Institute]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 356.21ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm.
The context was this – There was a battle going on around whether the Keating government would introduce a carbon tax (it didn’t).
Why this matters.
We have known the truth, it has been broadcast (literally).
What happened next?
Gilchrist did some very solid reporting for the Sydney Morning Herald about what the “Australian Industry Greenhouse Network” was up to, and wrote a great book – “The Big Switch”.
On this day, October 30 in 2006 the Stern Review was published. This had been commissioned by Gordon Brown, the United Kingdom “Chancellor of the Exchequer” (Treasurer) a year previously (see this blog post).
Nick Stern, a World Bank economist who could hardly be accused of being a swivel-eyed Luddite, argued that
“This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.”
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 379.33ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
Why this matters.
We knew. And we knew there was a “business case” for saving life on earth (the very words are bizarre, aren’t they?)
What happened next?
Oh, arguments about the “discount rate” (i.e. Stern was too optimistic)
A variety of “mini-Stern” reports, and for a while everyone using the language. Then nothing.
Fun fact – when Stern visited Australia, Prime Minister John Howard basically dismissed him as “English.”
On this day, October 29 in 1991, Maurice Strong (the Canadian oil baron who had organised the Stockholm conference in 1972 and was behind the then-impending Rio Earth Summiit) came to the National Press Club in Canberra
Nations, including Australia, that are contributing the most to global environmental degradation must pay the most to save the planet, Maurice Strong, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development told the National Press Club in Canberra last week. [29 October]
Anon.1991. Australia must pay, says top UN official. Green Week, November 5, p.7.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 370.93ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The “Earth Summit” was due to take place in June 1992, in Rio. Although the Federal Government had set an “interim planning target” of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005 (on a 1988 baseline), it hadn’t actually done much to make that a reality.
Slightly green-minded Prime Minister Bob Hawke still Prime Minister, but his nemesis, former Treasurer Paul Keating was circling.
Maurice Strong was the poster-child of evil for the nutjob denialists, until Al Gore stole that particular mantle.
Why this matters.
It doesn’t, really. Nothing matters except whether we massively reduce emissions and somehow remove absurd quantities of C02 and methane from the atmosphere (spoiler- we don’t).
What happened next?
Rio happened in June. Australia’s Prime Minister Paul Keating did not bother to attend. Australia did nothing to meet its promises, and by 1996 was aggressively and publicly resisting further action. So it goes…
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 314ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
American scientist Gilber Plass had been making noises about this issue, as were the Swedes. The International Geophysical Year was about to start (i.e. Roger Revelle was in the process of hiring Charles David Keeling)
Why this matters.
We knew enough to worry and watch, back then, and to act if the worries about a build-up were to be proven (as they were, within a few more years of this article).
What happened next?
Roger Revelle hired Charles David Keeling to take accurate measurements of carbon dioxide.
On this day, October 27, 1990, the British Magazine the Economist had a cover story about “global warming” and international agreements.
In a cover story, The Economist (“Warm world, cool heads,” 27 Oct. 1990, p. 13) observes that “No country seriously contemplates Toronto levels of self-restraint.” Thus pressures for emission standards come from several European nations that want to hold CO2 emissions steady by the year 2000.
(Ungar, 1992.)
In late June 1988 a conference – of scientists and NGO types had come up with a call for a 20% cut in emissions by 2005 for rich countries. Various nations – including Australia – had by the time of the Economist story – come up with some versions of a pledge, usually with all sorts of get out clauses.
The Economist’s story came out just before the Second World Climate Conference, which was attended by political leaders (including Margaret Thatcher), and was the starting gun for the international process that led to the UNFCCC. Which had various (aspirational) targets – none of which went beyond stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 (which nations did not do, obvs).
What happened next?
Thirty years of pledges and promises, as emissions soared.
On this day, October 26, 1975 the “Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins in…
It was co-organised by Stephen Schneider and Margaret Mead.
To quote from the preface of “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering” book that followed –
“When Dr. Margaret Mead was a Visiting Scholar at the Fogarty International Center, one of her interests focused on the interactions between the world society and its planetary environment. She saw a conflict developing, and yet there was surprisingly little public awareness of the growing problems and few efforts to develop long-term national and international solutions to these problems. She therefore persuaded the Fogarty International Center to sponsor a conference on the atmospheric environment which would explore the ways to maintain it as a healthy place in which to live.
An organizing committee planned the Conference, and its members are listed in these Proceedings. We were fortunate in being able to enlist the help of Dr. William W. Kellogg, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, to work with Dr. Mead as co-organizer and co-editor of the Proceedings; he is known internationally for his work on climate change and mankind’s influence on climate. Four able and dedicated rapporteurs were also enlisted, and this report owes its existence largely to their efforts. They are Mr. Anthony Broderick, Doctors Richard S. Greeley and J. Dana Thompson, and Ms. Barbara West
1975 26-29 “Endangered Atmosphere” conference
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 328.36ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this – more and more climate scientists, agronomists, anthropologists etc were getting interested in what would happen if (when) temperatures started to go up.
Mead had known about carbon dioxide build-up as early as 1964 (and probably earlier) – she had been on the atmosphere group of the President’s Science Advisory Committee with Roger Revelle.
Why this matters.
Good people have been thinking about this for almost fifty years. And here we are…
What happened next?
In 2007 the denialists got hold of it. A terrible article – held up as an exemplar of good practice by the denialists, of course – was published. It’s all Rockefeller’s fault…
On this day, October 25 in 2000, councils (local governments) in England signed up to one of the many meaningless declarations. Ten years earlier it had been Friends of the Earth’s charter. Twenty years on it would be “climate emergency” declarations. All tosh.
“Although not part of the central government programme, in local government, over 300 councils have signed up to the Nottingham Declaration, launched on 25 October 2000, committing them to work towards reducing emissions”
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 367.18ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The UK had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. Emissions were still edging down (but coal would come roaring back into the energy mix soon). Various councils had done more or less on climate, but with the coming of renewed interest in “regionalisation” and regional economies, now was a good time to, er, promise the earth.
Why this matters.
Remember the many broken promises. Be skeptical about the next ones.
What happened next?
Not much, of course. They ‘renewed the pledge, not that anyone believed them. Blah blah.