Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

February 17, 2003 – “please ratify Kyoto Protocol” advisory group begs John Howard

Twenty three years ago, on this day, February 17th, 2003,

Even though the Kyoto Protocol “does not offer a global solution to climate change,” an Australian government advisory group wants the country to ratify the international climate change agreement anyway.

Why? Because the treaty is a “step towards a global climate change response,” according to a report released Feb. 18 by the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Advisory Group.

Additionally, the cost of meeting the treaty’s first commitment period would be low, with or without Australia’s inclusion, the report noted. However, if Australia ratifies Kyoto, “economic costs associated with meeting the target are estimated to be less than half of the costs that would be incurred if Australia takes action to meet the target from outside the treaty framework,” the report concluded.

The report was prepared in response to a request from the premiers of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria.

While Australia’s ratification would certainly improve the protocol’s chances of entering into force, the treaty still relies heavily on a pending commitment from Russia, which is responsible for 17.4% of the world’s total emissions. The Russian government had hinted it would ratify the treaty by the end of last year, but that still has not happened.

http://elibrary.cenn.org/Report/Report%20of%20the%20Kyoto%20Protocol%20Ratification.pdf

 AUSTRALIAN GOV’T ADVISORY GROUP WANTS COUNTRY TO RATIFY KYOTO Oxy-Fuel News

Vol. 15, Issue: 9 [Copyright 2003 Chemical Week Associates. All rights reserved.]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was there seems to have been a concerted push by various entities(stat governments especially)  to make it possible for Australia to ratify the  Kyoto Protocol, even though Howard had ruled it out six months previously. Decisions can be overturned, U turns can be forced. And they’ll have known that. These people will have known that an emissions trading scheme proposal was planned to come forward to a Howard cabinet again (one had been defeated in 2000.)

What I think we can learn from this is that business was severely split, because Kyoto was going to make some of them some money in terms of consultancy fees and all the rest of it for carbon trading. And this is a case where business interests are trying to exert pressure on politicians. Politicians are running for their own show as well. And there’s also the geo-politics with Howard wanting to be absolutely in lockstep with George W Bush. (I mean, essentially, Australia is a US colony, frankly, let’s not kid ourselves.)

What happened next?  The Business Council of Australia had to say they had no position on Kyoto ratification. Howard scuppered an ETS with his own personal veto. And eventually, in ,Australia did ratify Kyoto – for what that was worth. I.e. not much. See also, the academic article “The Veil of Kyoto.” 

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
International processes United States of America

February 16, 2014 – US climate envoy John Kerry denounces “shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues”

Eleven years ago, on this day, February 16th, 2014 climate envoy John Kerry says “look over there”:

Climate change may be the world’s “most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction and urgent action is needed to combat it, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday, comparing those who deny its existence or question its causes to people who insist the Earth is flat.

In a speech to Indonesian students, civic leaders and government officials in Jakarta, Kerry laid into climate change deniers, accusing them of using shoddy science and scientists to delay measures needed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at the risk of imperiling the planet. He also went after those who continue to dispute who is responsible for such emissions, arguing that everyone and every country must take responsibility and act immediately.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/john-kerry-blasts-climate-change-deniers-shoddy-scientists-1.2539163

[And the link here It has been 404ed… http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm ]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was “eyes on Paris” for what was going to be the latest “last chance to save the Earth”, but there were still people chuntering about climate change not being a problem, and Kerry was getting stuck into them.  Partly to avoid the weakness of the proposals being put forward, by him and his ilk, I guess.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are always people chuntering about it not being a problem. And one of them is now President of the United States, and the bots are all spouting the bullshit about false predictions and everything’s fine and so forth. nd people want to believe it, and so they do. 

What happened next

The denialists didn’t go away. And you neither did the lukewarmers. 

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 Carbon Pricing

February 15, 1995 – Australian Financial Review editorial, gloating in the aftermath of the defeat of a small carbon tax proposal, groks Jevons Paradox

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 15th, 1995,  the Fin editorialises…

“But no-regrets policies cannot be counted on to significantly reduce Australia’s total greenhouse emissions. The reason is that making the economy more efficient and competitive will lead to higher levels of output.”

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 vigorous, indeed vociferous and ultimately successful campaign to stop the carbon tax. One of the inevitable arguments was, oh, but, you know, we’ll make everything more efficient. And the Australian Financial Review, to its credit, sort of at least understood something that economists had understood for at that point, I don’t know 130 years; that increasing the efficiency of a process doesn’t mean that less of it gets used overall, but rather more. i.e., Jevons paradox. 

What I think we can learn from this is that basic economic concepts (which doesn’t mean they’re right, but in this case, it seems to be) are sometimes seemingly too complex, or perhaps merely too inconvenient for some politicians who want to be able to use motherhood words like efficiency without being challenged.

What happened next The Fin has deteriorated as a paper, I would say. The carbon price, rather, was instituted very briefly and then became toxic and was killed off

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
Germany Science Uncategorized

Feb 14, 1975 – “Some recent thinking on the future carbonate system of the sea” published.

On this day fifty years ago, a catchily-titled academic article was published…

The context – since the 1950s people had been keeping tabs on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The dogma that extra carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere would be absorbed by the oceans had been exploded by Revelle and Seuss (not the same Seuss as yesterday’s post!) 

What we learn – we knew plenty enough to be taking action

What happened next. Oh, you know the rest, if you’ve been reading this site for any length of time. The emissions kept climbing, the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases kept climbing. The temperatures kept climbing. The social movements performed a bunch of three year spasms every decade or so…

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

February 14, 1972 – the Lorax is animated…

Fifty three years ago, on this day, February 14th, 1972,

The book was adapted as an animated musical television special produced by DePatie-Freleng Enterprises, directed by Hawley Pratt and starring the voices of Eddie Albert and Bob Holt. It was first aired by CBS on February 14, 1972. A reference to pollution of Lake Erie was spoken by one of the Humming-Fish as they depart; it remains in DVD releases of the show, although later removed from the book. The special also shows the Onceler arguing with himself, and asking the Lorax whether shutting down his factory (thus putting hundreds of people out of work) is practical.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was running around talking about the environment. The Dr Seuss book The Lorax was part of that big picture. So. hardly surprising that an animation of it should be made.

What I think we can learn from this that old people, young people, everyone in between, people really did know in the late 60s -early 70s, what was at stake. And people who cared were unable to sustain public attention, because issues get old, and there was so much else going on; a war to protest, to try to end multiple wars for the state managers reconfiguring the American Empire. They had a lot on –  not that they ever intended to do anything about environmental degradation. 

So a few people thought that the dominant party could be persuaded. The “good chaps” theory of government, perhaps. 

What happened next Dr Seuss died in 1991. The Lorax got remade,

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 13, 1995 – Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner runs up the white flag on a carbon tax.

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 13th, 1995

CANBERRA, Feb 14 (Reuter) – Australian Environment Minister John Faulkner said the government had decided not to go ahead with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, known as an environment levy.

“I’ve indicated that it’s just not going to go forward,” Faulkner told 2GB Sydney radio. “As far as I’m concerned a greenhouse levy is off the agenda.”

Australia govt drops plans for carbon tax-minister. Reuters, 14 February 1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a fierce and ultimately successful resistance to the first serious proposal for a carbon tax in Australia. It was on this day that John Faulkner had to admit he just wouldn’t have the numbers to get it through Keating’s cabinet. Australia was already muttering about finding loopholes in the UNFCCC or exploiting them, of course, John Howard, who by this time, was Liberal leader would, shortly after this, say that Australia should never have signed the UNFCCC climate treaty. 

What I think we can learn from this is that 30 years ago, there was an effort to get a small, sensible economic measure going. It would have been grossly inadequate, but it would have been a start. 

What happened next is the proponents of the carbon tax switched to an emissions trading scheme proposal, hoping that would suit neoliberalism a bit better. And of course, that was also the prevailing wind from the United States in its attempt to water down any international action. And eventually, Australia did get a carbon price in 2012 and it was very quickly abolished. 

And the emissions rise, as do the concentrations.

Categories
Uncategorized

February 12, 1992 – John Hewson plots to cut the green crap

Thirty three years ago, on this day, February 12th, 1992, Liberal Party John Hewson decides to give up on pretending to give a shit about “the environment”.

The federal coalition will reconsider its radical position on curbing emission of greenhouse gasses.

The Opposition Leader, Dr Hewson, said yesterday that he had asked the environment spokesman, Mr Chaney, to review the Opposition’s policy of endorsing a target of a 20 per cent reduction in these emissions by 2000.

Grattan, M. 1992. Coalition To Rethink Greenhouse Policy. The Age, 13 February, p.3.

[Here ends the competitive consensus!!]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Libs had gone to the 1990 election trying to win over small g green voters because (big G green voters didn’t exist) and were unsuccessful and believed that they were stabbed in the back. The new Liberal leader John Hewon, was looking forward to the 1993 election, which he must have felt fairly confident that he was going to win, given the recession that we had to have, which had Paul Keating’s name all over it. Keating was by now installed as prime minister, and so Hewson was looking to, in the words of a later conservative leader, cut the green crap. 

This was noticed, at the time, by the way. See this

“According to the director of science and technology policy at Murdoch University, Fightback would result in a six per cent increase in car use immediately, and 28 per cent in a few years.

The table shows that Australia is the third worst polluter in the OECD region and that our poor performance is very much related to low fossil-fuel prices.

If Australia is to get its carbon emissions down to a level comparable with other OECD countries, some form of carbon tax will have to be introduced.

International pressure to move in this direction is likely to intensify over the next decade.”

Davidson, K. 1993. Hewson Error Of Emission.The Age, 11 February, p.13. 

What I think we can learn from this is the Libs had a policy. It didn’t serve them with the electorate. They ditched it, and they never got it back, and this was the moment when Hewson ditched it.

What happened next Hewson lost the unlosable election in part thanks to a birthday cake and how much his flat tax would cost.  But now goes around bleating on about the environment and saying Market Forces are gonna fix it. Australia has been so badly let down by its political and economic “elite”. Buncha idiots at absolute best.

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
Uncategorized United Kingdom

Feb 11, 1970 – Prince Charles attends “Environment in the Balance” film premiere

On this day, February 11th, in 1970, Prince Charles attended a film premiere in London, as part of the opening of the European Conservation Year.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from early 1969 everyone had been banging on about their ‘green’ (not the word back then – ‘ecological’ was more in vogue) credentials. Here are Shell Mex and BP in an early effort at would later become called “greenwashing”

What we learn is that talk is cheap

What happened next – by 1973 Ecology was yesterday’s fad. It has come back several times, with new names and new soothing blandishments about technology or harmony or whatever. But we’re all toast.

Categories
Australia

February 10, 2006 – The Australian Conservation Foundation tries to get governments to take climate seriously…

Nineteen years ago, on this day, February 10th, 2006,

COAG meeting a chance for real progress on climate change

Date: 9-Feb-2006

The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged Commonwealth, State and Territory leaders to use tomorrow’s Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting in Canberra to craft a consistent, national approach to climate change.

“A global problem requires a global solution,” said ACF Executive Director Don Henry. “It’s vital we get Commonwealth, State and Territory leaders pulling in the same direction on this.”

“It’s good to see COAG talking about climate change. They can make some real progress on measures that will make a difference.”

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13467/20120118-0823/www.acfonline.org.au/articles/newse312.html?news_id=712

[COAG Working group had been set up previous late may/early June, according to this – “ACF calls for national deep cuts target on greenhouse”-11-Jun-2005]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change still had not quite broken through in public awareness, not for want of trying by Australian Conservation Foundation and others, and what we see is ACS trying to work with the state governments, most of which at this point were labor and one. To use climate as a stick to beat John Howard with. And ACF, if it has an affinity, it is with Labor. They’re probably less so now, 

What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs have to try and try and try and they will not get what they want.

What happened next

by the end of the year the ACF, sorry, the climate issue was on the agenda thanks to Millennium drought, Al Gore, Lord Stern, and this was exemplified by the huge walk against warming that year, September of thereabouts.

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
Interviews

“While it’s important to win the argument, you also have to win the fight–which is about money and power, not reason and data and evidence” – interview with Bill McKibben

The American author and activist, Bill McKibben has kindly agreed to answer a few questions from All Our Yesterdays. His 1989 book The End of Nature – about the implications of global warming – was groundbreaking, and whose activism since has included 350.org and now Third Act.

1.  According to Wikipedia (!) you were born in Palo Alto and then moved to Lexington Massachusetts.  There’s a question I ask almost everyone – according to some intriguing research, one thing that applies to many strong advocates of environmental action is that they spent a lot of time in “nature” in unstructured play before the age of 11. Does that apply to you?

To some degree. My father had grown up out west and was a devoted hiker, and we spent a couple of weeks each summer on vacation somewhere fairly wild. But I was a product of suburbia, and my real immersion in the natural world came later, as a young adult, when I moved to a remote part of the Adirondack mountains [You can read more about McKibben’s upbringing in his recent memoir – the Flag, The Cross and the Station Wagon]

2. Can you remember when and how you first heard about the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?  (Presumably it was in the late 1970s? So I am assuming things like Gus Speth at the Carter-era Council on Environmental Quality, or Worldwatch Institute or so on).

It was in the mid-1980s–but I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that really no one had heard much about it outside of closed scientific circles until Hansen’s 1988 testimony. That’s really when the clock started ticking

3. The “End of Nature” was one of the first books to really grapple with what carbon dioxide build-up would mean for societies and people relationships with nature,  beyond being an explanation of the science.  When was the last time you re-read it, and what did you think?  

I’ve reread pieces of it from time to time, most recently this year while writing Here Comes the Sun, which is a kind of bookend to The End of Nature. It seems to me to still be strong–obviously the work of a young man, but there’s not much I’d change. I wish I’d been wrong. 

4. Your next book The Age of Missing Information tried to help people understand what I call the datasmog.  That datasmog seems to have gotten much worse.  You have to be 40, really, to have any memory of the world before the Internet, and 25 to remember the world before smart phones.  Does that have implications for how younger people relate to the natural world, to political processes?  What do older activists not understand about this change, in your opinion?

I think it’s pretty clear the world is mostly mediated now, for most people most of the time. We just stare down at the thing in our palms. And if it was providing us with intelligence and wisdom that would be one thing, but it clearly mostly is not

5.  All Our Yesterdays is devoted to getting people to realise just how long the scientists have been warning and the media too.  What lessons do you think have been unlearned or under-learned from the 36 years since your first piece on the topic, in December 1988.

That while it’s important to win the argument, you also have to win the fight–which is about money and power, not reason and data and evidence

6. Pivoting to “now” – there were successful campaigns to stop specific disastrous pipelines and so on, and during the Biden administration there was, along with a lot that was terrible and inadequate, some things that might give a squinting optimist cause for hope (Climate Corps.)

Well, now what?! 

I keep track as best I can on my free newsletter, The Crucial Years. We’re in the midst of two great trends–the very rapid warming of the earth, and the very rapid fall in the price of clean energy. It’s hard to know which will prove stronger; we need to do all we can to make the latter force as powerful as it can be, even amidst the oil-soaked Trump presidency

7. Anything else you’d like to say. (plugs for new books, projects, groups, general thoughts)

Please save September 20 and 21 on your calendars. We’re calling that weekend SunDay and will soon announce big plans to make it a festive moment of celebration of the possibility for running the earth in far more benign ways.

[When more information about that weekend are available, AOY will add a link, and post]

Here’s something from McKibben’s

.

So in about six weeks we’re going to formally announce plans for a big global day of action—we’re calling it Sun Day. It will happen on the weekend of the autumnal equinox, September 20 and 21. It will be a celebration of the fact that we can now run this world without fossil fuels: imagine EV and e-bike parades, green lights in the window of every solar-powered home, big concerts and rallies, joyful ceremonies as new solar farms and wind turbines go on line. It’s going to happen around the world. It’s going to demand justice—above all, that we figure out how to finance this revolution around the world, so the people who need it most can take full part. And it’s going to be beautiful.

This may not look, at first glance, like ‘resistance’ or ‘opposition.’ But in fact this is precisely what the fossil fuel industry fears most: the truth that their product isn’t needed. That it’s dirty, that it’s expensive, and that there’s a better way—Big Oil’s executives know that at the cellular level, which is precisely why they spent so much money electing Trump. Solar panels are to the fossil fuel industry what water was to the Wicked Witch.

Help!

Do you have ideas (and ideally contacts) for people AOY should interview? There’s absolutely nothing automatically wrong with white middle-aged men (speaking as one), but it turns out they are only one sliver of a vibrant broad climate movement. So please, if you know people from all the other demographics who might respond positively to an interview request, let me know.