Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 2, 1994 – A green budget needed in Australia…

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1994, environmentalists were doing what they could to push for a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, to consider green-based Budget measures, including a radical tax on carbon.

The foundation’s president, Professor David Yencken, and its executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell, met Mr Keating yesterday. They sought support for a complex Budget submission and asked for a swift replacement for the former Environment Minister, Mrs Kelly.

Middleton, K. 1994. Conservationists Urge PM To Go For A Green Budget. The Age, 3 March p.7.

And

The Australian Conservation Foundation has proposed sweeping changes to the Federal Government’s taxation and spending practices to safeguard Australia’s future environmental and economic interests.

In its first detailed Budget submission, released yesterday, the ACF proposed measures it said would save the Government between $ 1.4 billion and $1.9 billion next financial year at the same time as promoting more environmentally responsible practices and creating jobs. The measures include a jobs levy, carbon tax, woodchip export levy, more money for public transport, and taxation incentives for nature conservation and the use of green technologies

AAP, 1994. Alter taxation, spending to aid environment: ACF. Canberra Times, 3 March, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people wanting to see action on what we then called “the greenhouse effect” had been suggesting a tax on carbon dioxide usage since the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process of 91-92. And there wasn’t really any coherent ideological or economic argument against this other than squeals of pain from the people who would have to pay it, who were doing the polluting.

Australia was a signatory to the UN Framework Convention, which was going to become law. And there was going to be the first “COP” meeting quite soon. And so in order to demonstrate credibility, so the argument went, the Australian Government could introduce a low tax, which would fund some energy efficiency, some renewables and the sky would not fall. And so that was the bid – entirely sensible, but unable to overcome, as we have seen, the power of the fossil fuel lobby in Australia. 

What I think we can learn from this is that politics is a blood sport. And everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost. 

What happened next: The conservation lobby got their wish. There was a proposal for a carbon tax. And it was withdrawn because the opposition to, from within Paul Keating’s cabinet, egged on by the usual suspects beyond, was so successful that it was never going to get through cabinet. And the emissions kept climbing 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
United Kingdom

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, March 1st, 1967, a London audience heard mention of carbon dioxide build-up.

THE DISPOSAL OF COMMUNAL WASTE

 A paper by  H. R. OAKLEY , M.Sc., M.I.C.E. read to the Society on Wednesday 1st March 1967

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that Barry Commoner’s book Science and Survival had come out the previous September in the UK. It received favourable reviews. It mentioned carbon dioxide buildup. In January of that year, there had been a television programme on the BBC called Challenge, directed by the late Roy Battersby, which had also mentioned CO2 buildup. 

So, while it is surprising, perhaps to think of people in 1967, explicitly referencing carbon dioxide buildup in speeches about disposal of waste, it’s not actually that surprising. 

What we can learn is that we have known about a potential issue for a lot longer than is commonly thought, but that we were unable to turn this individual awareness and potential worry into anything sustained. Because we as a species can’t really cope with uncertainty and fear, especially if it’s an apocalypse of our own making. People tend to give up on fighting the system for very understandable reasons; because the system wins! And they retreat either into physical escapes or mental escapes. 

What happened next? 

Well, the carbon dioxide buildup issue kept being discussed by 1969 it was relatively prominent. And in August 1970, the first British state pushback happened. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
United States of America

February 29, 1980 – Texaco and Exxon talk about setting up a greenhouse taskforce…

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 29th, 1980,

Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered “for consideration” the idea that “an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980. 

Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too

The minutes also show that the task force discussed a “potential area” for research and development that called for it to “‘Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.’ This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Exxon had known about the climate issue, and had been offering to do further research more recently than that. And obviously, outfits like Texaco and Exxon were in talks about what could be done; “Oh, I know, let’s set up a workshop”

What we learn

Corporates have their pressures and it is akin to that MacMillan Manoeuvre thing, but it’s also a necessary first step. So what we learn here is that oil companies were on it in the late 70s, early 80s. In the same period that Carter was talking about Global 2000.

And they didn’t speak up when Reagan came in and started backpedalling/ignoring this stuff (James Watt, Anne Gorsuch) because it helped them take their foot off the gas (or maybe, more accurately, put their foot on the gas).

 What happened next Exxon changed its tune. And then in 1988, began serious resistance to the climate issue.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
United States of America

February 28, 1984 – Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect hearings

Forty years ago, on this day, February 28th, 1984, Al Gore and other politicians (Republicans too) held hearings, and not the first, about carbon dioxide build-up.

Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect, hearings of House Committee on Science and Technology, 98th Congress, Feb 28 1984.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00275567u&view=1up&seq=3 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 344.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people like Gore, were interested in the climate issue and in close contact with Roger Revelle (who had taught Gore at Harvard), James Hansen, etc. There had been hearings in 1982. And in September 1983 the Environmental Protection Agency had put out a report on “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” (the answer was “almost certainly not”.)

What we learn is that holding hearings is a relatively straightforward way of well, “hearing,” the latest science, showing your voters that you care, disseminating the message; you might even make it newsworthy (as had happened in 1982). So it’s a good tactic. Like any tactic, it can be overused. 

What happened next, Gore and other senators kept plugging away. After the Villach conference in 1985 in October 1985, they had a bit more of a fire in their belly about it. And they managed to get Carl Sagan, who was a rock star, and others. And then they finally broke through in ‘88, with drought, heatwaves and James Hansen…

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: 

 Feb 28, 2003- Australian business lobby switches from opposition to “no position” on Kyoto ratification #auspol

 February 28, 2010 – Australian Prime Minister says won’t walk away from climate. (Then does, obvs.)

Categories
Business Responses Canada Denial

February 27, 1989 – Barron’s “Climate of Fear” shame…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 27th, 1989, a Canadian business publication (Barron’s) comes out with the entirely predictable denialist bullshit that has aged so well.

Jonathan Laing, “Climate of Fear: The Greenhouse Effect May Be Mostly Hot Air,” Barron’s, February 27, 1989

https://www.fortfreedom.org/s32.htm

As two commentators put it – “Such a dismissive or distorted approach to serious environmental problems does a disservice to these publications’ readers, if only by spreading misinformation that may stifle industrial innovation in devising technologies that could lead to solutions to these problems, thereby downlaying new profit opportunities.”

(Oppenheimer & Boyle, 1990: 227) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the business press had decided that the hippies had had enough fun and that it was time to push back. Articles started popping up in right-wing business press saying “it’s all a big scare and hoax or exaggeration.” 

What we learn is, there’s always pushback. And it starts with these sorts of things and then grows into organisations like the George C Marshall Institute (which already existed, but pivoted) and the Global Climate Coalition.  It’s supported by outfits like the IPA. For every action, there’s an equal and oppositional batshit crazy reaction. 

What happened next is that more articles got published in the business press and they get approvingly cited in Parliament and speeches to create a new common sense; Gramsci, Hegemony etc etc.

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: 

February 27, 1988 – Canberra “Global Change” conference ends

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

Feb 27, 2003 – the “FutureGen” farce begins…

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

February 27, 2011 – “Metamorphosis” statement by Climate Camp

Thirteen years ago, on this day, February 27th,2011, a ‘cringe’ statement went out about the end of Climate Camp.

2011 02 27 Nauseating “Metamorphosis” statement by Climate Camp

That “Metamorphosis” statement in full…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

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.

The context was that the UK “Climate Camp” had been staggering on with diminishing returns since 2007 (it began in 2006). And eventually someone put the poor beast out of its misery because they were all burned out. 

What we learn is that so-called grassroots “organisations” have a real problem with sustaining themselves (Theseus’ ship and all that) because the new planks are thick as two short planks and not particularly radical; you get an influx of the careerist NGO types (as whined about in the 2008 letter at Kingsnorth, but I digress).

What happened next NVDA against power sources continued with Reclaim the Power. And then, in 2018, along came Extinction Rebellion, and we will know how that ended. 

Also on this day: 

February 27, 1988 – Canberra “Global Change” conference ends

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

Feb 27, 2003 – the “FutureGen” farce begins…

Categories
Australia

February 26, 1988 – Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman warns of “Dramatic Warming”

Thirty-six years ago, on this day, February 26th, 1988, four months before James Hansen gave his dramatic and pivotal testimony in Washington DC, an Australian climate scientist, Graeme Pearman, was speaking out on the same topic.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/101979010

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was the “Elizabeth and Frederick White Research Conference on Global Change at the Australian Academy of Science in Canberra, against the backdrop of increasing global awareness and the “Greenhouse Project” initiated by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO.  Pearman been studying climate change for 17 years by this time with CSIRO trying to alert people. And over the last 10 years, there had been a dramatic warming; this was captured also later that year. In March in a conference about the Gaia hypothesis held in San Diego. 

What we learn is that we’ve known – and we’ve chosen to ignore scientists and keep voting for the people who ignore scientists. Oh, and by the way, both mainstream political parties ignore the scientists. 

What happened next? A few months later, climate change properly exploded onto public consciousness, stayed there until about 1990-91 when the Gulf War took over. dislodging Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. And then it didn’t really come back until 2006, with The Inconvenient Truth etc.

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.

See also Graeme Pearman in January 1992 on the gamble.

Also on this day: 

Feb 26, 1981 – Science writer warns readers about the greenhouse in the Guardian….

 Feb 26, 1998 – Australian “clean coal” is on the way (again).

February 26, 2014 – Advanced Propaganda for Morons

Categories
Australia

February 25, 2011 – Alan Jones versus sanity

Thirteen years ago, on this day, February 25th, 2011, radio “shock jock” Alan Jones went beserk (how can you tell, though?), during the carbon wars, while interviewing Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard…

Or consider this excerpt from Jones’ 25 February 2011 interview with Gillard (which he began by berating the prime minister for being late). He concluded his line of questioning about her CO2 emissions policy saying: ‘Do you understand, Julia, that you are the issue today because there are people now saying that your name is not Julia but JuLIAR and they are saying we’ve got a liar running the country’ (cited in Barry 2011a).

(Ward, 2015: 236)

The context was that the day before Julia Gillard had stood next to the Greens Senator Bob Brown and announced that there would be a carbon pricing scheme. She utterly failed to deal effectively with the accusation that it was the very same carbon tax that she had promised during the election campaign that she would not introduce. And now, this was the beginning of open season on her. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

But there’s a deeper context, of course, around both the anti environmentalism of large portions of the Australian elite but also culture and society, a hatred of different nature. “Biological cringe”, as historian Tom Griffiths calls it. And also – and related – a deep, deep misogyny. You can’t understand what Gillard had to put up if you don’t nderstand that misogyny exists and that she was the first female prime minister. 

What happened next? Jones kept making increasingly outrageous statements about Gillard being a lesbian and putting her in a chaff bag and throwing her in the ocean. But this didn’t seem to affect his employability. Eventually his contract was not renewed and he had to go and work for Sky. Gillard endured and got a hell of a lot of legislation through. She was an extremely successful Prime Minister in those terms, and was toppled by the guy she had toppled Kevin Rudd in early 2013. 

And the emissions? Well, they kept climbing, natch.

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: 

 February 25, 1981 – National Party senator nails the climate problem

Feb 25 1992- business groups predict economic chaos if action is taken on #climate

Feb 25, 2007 – “Clean Coal Initiative” as move in game of one-dimensional electoral chess #auspol

Categories
United Kingdom

February 24, 1971 – aims of the Department of the Environment

Fifty three years ago, on this day, February 24th, 1971, the aims of the then new United Kingdom “Department of the Environment” were laid out.

The aims of the Department included the renewal, improvement and protection of the environment. Its first priority, as defined in a speech by Walker on 24 February 1971, was to ensure the environment could be enjoyed by the population as a whole, especially those who lived in or experienced a bad environment at that time.772 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Department of Energy had been a Harold Wilson idea mooted in I think, late ‘69, early ‘70. There’d been a change of government thanks to the Tories unexpectedly winning the June 1970 election,, but the political and institutional momentum was behind the creation of a department for  environment.  

What we can learn is that it was in this period in the very early 1970s, that Western governments started to change the state apparatus to accommodate public and scientific concern about pollution. . So you’d get Departments of Environment in Australia and the UK and the same sort of thing in the United States. This is not to say that some of these issues hadn’t been tackled before. 

What happened next? 

Well, the Department of Environment kept on keeping on. It has changed name and shape over time – is currently called Defra.

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:

Feb 24 1994 – the death of Abbey Pond 

 February 24, 2003 – UK Energy White Paper kinda changes the game (a bit).

Categories
Letters to publications

Whoop! Letter in the FT about climate change and baked in temperature rise

In today’s FT (February 23)…

There is a curious sentence in the excellent article “The power of Europe’s rebel farmers” by Alice Hancock and Andy Bounds (FT Weekend, February 10). They write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned of “‘substantive agricultural production losses’… if temperatures continue to rise.”

If? To quote the famed American diplomat George Kennan, writing in 1948 in another context “we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming.”

Every year we pour more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – almost 70% per annum more since policymakers first started mouthing the pieties 35 years ago. This year atmospheric concentrations will be 425 parts per million, 100pm more than when I was born in 1970.  As charted by the United Nations Environment Program’s annual “Emissions Gap” report, the chasm (or abyss) between our alleged ambition and the physical requirements to keep temperature increases even below an unsafe 2 degrees above pre-Industrial levels. grows remorselessly, every year.  

There is no “if” – or but – about it. Temperatures will increase, with all the consequences we can imagine, and more than a few we cannot.  Might the FT lead the way in replacing “if” with “as” in its coverage?