Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

September 6, 2000 – Emission scheme defeated, it’s time for a gloating press release… #Climate #auspol

On this day, September 6, 2000, South Australian Senator Nick Minchin puts out a press release… I know, hold the front page, right…

But the context is that the first attempt to introduce a national level emissions trading scheme had just been defeated – with Nick Minchin largely responsible.  This was the semi-gloating declaration of victory…

Below is a quote from the ever-reliable Jim Green, writing in “Green Left Weekly”

The federal Coalition government has taken a number of decisions to reassure big business that measures adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact.

Federal minister for industry, science and resources Nick Minchin outlined “specific commitments” to industry in a September 6 press release. They were:

●        that a mandatory domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme will not be introduced “prematurely”;

●        that the government “will involve industry from the inception through to the implementation phase of greenhouse gas abatement policies and strategies that impact on the industry”;

●        that the government will work internationally “to get Australia the best possible greenhouse position”;

●        that the government will assist in “minimising the burden of greenhouse measures on business         through cost-effective actions”; and

●        that the government will not “discriminate against particular projects or regions in greenhouse policies and programs”.

“What we are saying to industry is that in any decisions we make on greenhouse, we will work to maintain their international competitiveness. This is a framework for the government’s greenhouse policy processes. These are all common sense measures that will allow Australian industry to grow and meet our Kyoto commitments. It’s good news for industry, which has warmly welcomed the government’s commitments”, Minchin said.

The government’s “specific commitments” are noticeably lacking in specifics. Canberra’s primary aim is simply to reassure business interests that measures to curb escalating greenhouse gas emissions will have little or no impact on their activities.

Green, J. 2000. Business warms to greenhouse ‘commitments’. Green Left Weekly, 13 September.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/business-warms-greenhouse-commitments

On this day the PPM was 367.15 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

There is inertia in human systems, but that inertia is often helped on its way by intransigence.  And that intransigence is not “stupid”. Underestimate the opponents of action at your peril…

What happened next?

Prime Minister John Howard got away with it for two more elections. Only in 2006-7 did this unravel for him.

Categories
Uncategorized

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

On this day, September 5, 2005, then Labor opposition spokesperson for the environment Anthony Albanese (where have I read that name recently?) introduced a private member’s bill

And oh, look, he’s all in favour of climate triggers…

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r2416_first/toc_pdf/05140b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

On this day the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 376.89 ppm Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

The context is that the Liberal National government of John Howard was enthusiastically boosting fossil exports, doing everything it could to slow renewables and to scupper international action.  Labor were trying to make political capital out of this (and Albanese also – to be fair – seems like a decent human being who understands, on some level, what is at stake for our species).

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, does it? “We knew.” That can be our obituary. Smart enough to understand the dumb things we were doing, not smart enough to stop doing the dumb things.

What happened next?

We kept digging and burning, burning and digging. A small subset of that “we” got seriously rich doing it.

Categories
Australia

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

On this day, September 5 1990, the new-ish Australian Environment Minister, Ros Kelly, was trying to finish the work that a male colleague had started with endless self-promotion but not a lot of guile (this is a pattern that will recur, 20 years later). Here are two newspaper accounts

Targets to reduce greenhouse gases would strengthen the Australian economy, not cripple it, according to the Minister for the Environment, Ms Kelly.

Speaking to a Metal Trades Industry Association seminar, Ms Kelly made a preliminary sortie in the battle she will fight with her Cabinet colleagues next Monday to try to persuade them to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Ms Kelly said a report for her department by Deni Greene Consulting Services showed that a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2005 is not only possible, it is pretty easy to obtain”.

Industry groups have been lobbying the Government hard in recent days against setting a target to reduce emissions, which they argue could dramatically increase costs.

Garran, R. 1990. Kelly sees big savings in cutting greenhouse gases. Australian Financial Review, 6 September, p. 5.

and

“In a speech yesterday (5th), Mrs Kelly called again for immediate action. She stressed the IPCC findings and said that “the sensible course of action is to do what we can, as soon as we can”.

A 20 per cent cut had been proved “not only possible (but) easy to obtain,” she said. “

Seccombe, M. 1990. Polluters put on the back-burner. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 September, p.1

On this day the PPM was 351.38. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

There was a time when – if you were optimistic (and perhaps naive?) you could imagine Federal politicians in Australia actually taking action that would have added up to a semi-adequate response to climate change. It was a brief time, one easily romanticised, but it did exist.

What happened next?

None of this came to pass. The fight back from the fossil lobby was supremely effective. Companies in Australia dug up and burnt/sold insane (I mean that literally) quantities of fossil fuels, with active and very enthusiastic support of the political classes and the bureaucrats. And here we are.

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”

On this day, September 4 2006, the Royal Society (venerable Science outfit, 360ish years old) asked the American oil company Exxon to knock it off with the climate denial support.

https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2006/royal-society-exxonmobil/

On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 379.04 ppm Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Exxon had been/has been an enormous source of climate denial, despite their own scientists saying in the 1970s that yes, indeed, global warming because of the burning of fossil fuels was going to be a serious thing. A bunch of scientists who don’t like hand-to-hand combat coming out and saying “stop right there thank you very much” was a big deal.

What happened next?

Exxon got sneakier about it, is all.

Categories
Ignored Warnings United States of America

September 3, 1988 – Ann Landers is Greta Thunberg avant la lettre…

On this day in 1988 Ann Landers , the famous American advice columnist went full-Greta. Yes. 1988. We knew this stuff, generations ago.

1988 Ann Landers column from The Dispatch, North Carolina, 3rd September 1988, p 7

“If we don’t get some balance in our environment soon, life on this planet as we know it, is finished.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19880903&id=yn8cAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AFIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5667,321353&hl=en

On this day the atmospheric CO2 level was 348.97 ppm. Now it is 421-ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

We knew the stakes. We blew it.

What happened next?

We kept emitting.

Yes, look, I know pretty much every blog post on this site is saying exactly the same thing. But really, what else is there to say?

We could have acted differently – but the incentive structures meant we didn’t. And here we are. Suck it up.

Categories
Australia

September 2nd, 2002- Peter Garrett argues “community action” vs #climate change

On this day, September 2nd 2002, Midnight Oil lead singer Peter Garrett gave a lecture at ANU, pointing to “community action” as the only real hope….

“In a time of change so fundamental that even the notion of humanity was not immune, being passive was to accept impending doom, Midnight Oil lead singer and environmental activist Peter Garrett said. Speaking at the Australian National University’s public lecture series yesterday, the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation decried the country’s environmental record, yet pointed to community action as the only real hope.” 

Centenera, J. 2002. Garrett urges community to take action. Canberra Times, 3 September, p. 5.

On this day the PPM was 370.93 ppm Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Community action was never going to be enough. And it is so hard to sustain…

What happened next?

Australians got agitated about climate change in large numbers a few years later (2006), but the politicians fucked it up (if your perspective is that they are there to serve current and future generations. If you think they are there to protect the rich and powerful in the short term, then….).

Julia Gillard did the best she could, got some legislation passed – inadequate, but passed. In an act of cosmic vandalism, the next Prime Minister, a deeply inadequate figure called Tony Abbott, repealed it.

Another wave of community action happened. And the atmospheric concentrations kept rising…

See also this about Midnight Oil’s 1990 gig outside Exxon HQ…

Categories
Australia

September 2, 1972 – Adelaide FOE asks “is technology a blueprint for destruction?” (Spoiler – ‘yes’)

On this day 2nd-3rd September 1972 the then new Friends of the Earth Adelaide held a two day seminar in Adelaide asking the question  “Is technology a blueprint for destruction”?

(The word “blueprint” was on everyone’s lips because of the Blueprint for Survival published by The Ecologist.in January of the same year.)

In his opening address, Professor G.M. Badger, Vice-Chancellor of the host institution – University of Adelaide – (and Professor of Organic Chemistry from 1954) had this to say

“I mentioned inevitable pollution, by which I particularly meant carbon dioxide, because when any fossil fuel is burnt, carbon dioxide is an inevitable product of it. Carbon dioxide is not usually considered a pollutant, but it is well to remember that it can be extremely serious for mankind. It plays an important part in the photosynthesis of plants, but its concentration in the atmosphere has increased over the last 70 years from 290 parts/million in the 19th century to 320 parts/million today, and it is still increasing by 0.7 parts/million/annum.

The significance of this increase lies in what is called the glasshouse effect… If this persists, the consequences could be extremely serious. It does not require a great increase in the mean world temperature to start melting the ice-floes and to change the world’s climate.”

The theme was also taken up by at least one of the speakers, Professor Bockris.

“

On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 324.84 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

We knew. Fifty years ago we knew enough to be worried. By forty years ago we knew enough to start taking serious action.

What happened next?

The warnings continued. And so did the behaviours that led to the warnings.

Categories
United States of America

September 1st, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

On this day, September 1st 1983 – an academic article “A GAME FRAMEWORK FOR SCENARIO GENERATION FOR THE CO2 ISSUE” was published in Simulation and Gaming.

Turns out “A group at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) has explored several possible C02 games. A framework built around impacts of climatic change, scientific uncertainty, external factors, and policy options of prevention, adaptation, and compensation is described in this article. The framework is designed to raise questions of what could happen to whom, when, and to what effect.”

On this day the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 340.46 ppm  Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

The game is the game, and the game is rigged.

What happened next?

We kept burning the fossil fuels, and building the infrastructure to burn ever more fossil fuels.

Categories
Ignored Warnings United Kingdom

September 1,1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

On this day, 1st September 1972, the British meteorologist J.S. Sawyer had a paper “Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect” in Nature..

Sawyer, in four pages, summarised what was known and what could be reasonably expected in the short-term (up to the year 2000).

In September 2007, 35 years later, the Australian meteorologist Neville Nicholls had a letter in the same journal, argued  that  “Sawyer’s prediction of a reversal of this trend, and of the correct magnitude of the warming, is perhaps the most remarkable long-range forecast ever made.”

On this day the atmospheric CO2 level was 324.84 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters

It is unfair to blame politicians for not having acted in 1972. But they could/should have started paying attention then. By the late 1970s there really was enough certainty among scientists for real action to begin  (to be clear, real action has still not – 40 years on from that putative deadline – begun. Oh well).

What happened next?

Sawyer kept working. 

As Agar (2015) notes   “In 1974, the Met Office had marked an expanding interest in climate by starting a working party on world climatology, ‘with specific emphasis on climatic change’, under J.S. Sawyer, the Met Office’s director of research.”

Sawyer was asked by the Cabinet Office in 1976 for his opinion of American climate scientist Reid Bryson (see All  Our Yesterdays post about that here).

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

August 31, 2005 – “Stop Climate Chaos” launched

August 31, 2005 – “Stop Climate Chaos” launched

On this day, August 31, 2005 the “Stop Climate Chaos” coalition was launched in the UK – the usual suspect NGOs big and small.

“Up to 500 campaigners formed a giant human banner next to the London Eye to launch a major new alliance. Eighteen groups representing millions of supporters have created the UK’s biggest climate change coalition.

“The Stop Climate Chaos group wants to put pressure on the government to reduce gas emissions. At the G8 summit, the US and UK called for greater investment in clean technology to replace Kyoto-style curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. But others warn new technology will come too late and emissions targets are needed to tackle the problem. The group of volunteers lined up along London’s South Bank to form a giant “human banner” in Jubilee Gardens in the shape of the group’s logo.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4201400.stm

[The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 378.9 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

We’ve had coalitions of NGOs. They tend to be “lowest conman denominator”, with the most staid organisations vetoing anything at all useful, so that even a march comes to be seen as “edgy.” 


FFS.

What happened next?

The terminally stupid “wave” march in December 2009 was the end of the road for “Stop Climate Chaos”, and, effectively, that particular “wave” of climate concern. It was avoidable, but would have required guts and brains that outfits like Stop Climate Chaos did not have. So it goes. There are other outfits now, I think there is one called the “Climate Coalition”. All failed, all useless. We’re toast.