Categories
Podcasts

Four podcasts and an ongoing funeral (for the hairless murder apes)

Opinions vary on podcasts and their utility (1). Me, I use them so I’m not alone with my thoughts – what a yikes that would be – while I feed moorhens (2).

Besides Letter from An American (Sept 26 was brilliant – on what the ‘Battle’ of Wounded Knee actually was) there are four others worth your time

On a recent Bridging the Carbon Gap Peter Sikora is clear and blunt about what ‘climate’ activism can achieve, can’t, the barriers. I loved his pushback on the whole notion of hope.

Two from a new series called The Energy Revolution are particularly on good on the UK situation. The podcast is

“Hosted by Sulaiman Ilyas-Jarrett, former Head of Policy and Strategy for Renewable Electricity Delivery at the UK Department for Energy and Senior Advisor at No10 Downing Street. He is now a Policy Fellow at the University of Cambridge Centre for Science and Policy.”

First there was “1800 to the present” with “Arthur Downing, Director of Strategy at Octopus and author of the forthcoming book Power and the People: a history of energy in Britain since 1800.” A wide-ranging discussion – the stuff that resonated most for me (don’t forget, I am a history geek) was about the four phases of the UK energy system over the last 200 years.

Then today I listened to Simon Evans, who was at ENDS but has been at Carbon Brief for the last decade or so. A really useful conversation about the nature of the UK media. My intuitions – that the FT is v. good and the Telegraph is comedically bad (Private Eye have been covering its descent into total swivel-eyed lunacy) – were backed up, so we both must be right. Predictably no conversation about the deeper ways of thinking about why the media is the way it is- Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, for example (which, to be clear, is not the be all and end all, but is a useful tool to think/see with).

Finally, Chris Hayes “Why is this Happening?” had a really interesting guest, Costa Samaras, who was neck deep in the Biden Administrations Inflation Reduction Act (a huge effort to fund green technologies etc). Samaras clearly knows his stuff (he is an energy wonk’s wonk) and – which does not always follow – is able to communicate complexity without descending into jargon and waffle.  An extremely useful hour. Only irritation was the idea that some of what Trump’s gang (it should surely really be called the VoughtMiller gang?) “makes no sense”  – for example ending a 7 billion dollar scheme to get poor/marginalised communities installing rooftop solar.

It makes perfect sense if you want captive consumers. I am reminded (as I often am) of the Stamford Raffles anecdote by permaculture guy Bill Mollison.

When Sir Stamford Raffles went to Singapore, he went by way of Indonesia and saw how self-reliant people were with the palms that provided them with everything they needed. He said ‘These people are ungovernable’. There was nothing the government could give them that they wanted or needed. So what had to be done was clear. Cut the fucking palms down, so they became dependent, and hence governable. You can’t govern independent people. They have no need of anything you can bring them.”

So, anyway, all four are very much worth your time.  Alongside Letter from an American, obvs.

Footnotes

(1) “To anaesthetize people? To feel they’re learning something? To put them to sleep. So they can exercise and not feel like idiots. Occasionally to learn something. To keep themselves entertained while doing busy work of some kind.”

(2) But I should be doing more narrating of vomit drafts.

Categories
Australia

September 30, 1991 – Hawke’s ministers and ESD 

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 30, 1991,

The cost of repairing damage to the environment must be included in the price of resources, the Federal Government was told yesterday.

The message was delivered to senior ministers during a private meeting with the heads of the Government’s working groups on ecologically sustainable development.

They warned that the community must be more closely involved if the plan to write sustainable policies for resource-based industries was to succeed.

The working group heads put their views directly to ministers and the Prime Minister, shortly before Mr Hawke had talks with representatives of business, unions, and green groups.

1991 Peake,R. 1991. Report Backs Green Levy On Consumers. The Age, 1 October, p.18.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that in 1990, after winning the March Federal election by a very slender margin, with the grudging support of small g- green voters, the Labor government of Bob Hawke had initiated an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process. This dragged on, and by September 1991 the draft reports were released.

The specific context was that everyone knew Hawke’s days were numbered – Paul Keating was lurking in the wings, waiting for Hawke to stumble…

What I think we can learn from this is that policy processes are  meat-grinders, and leave few good options for NGOs.  Refuse to participate and you look prima donna. Participate and you are ground down and look complicit.

What happened next – Hawke stumbled, Keating came for him, got the Prime Ministership. ESD got thrown in the bin.

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: 

September 30, 1969 -US activist publication mentions climate change

September 30, 1977 – “Carbon Dioxide and climate: carbon budget still unbalanced” 

September 30, 2009 – Tony Abbott says #climate science is “absolute crap”

September 30, 2014 – a big CCS demonstration project opens.

Categories
United States of America

September 29, 2006 – Democrats say political appointees suppressing evidence of warming

Nineteen years ago, on this day, September 30th, 2006,

A group of 14 Democratic lawmakers, led by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, sends a letter to the inspector generals of both the Commerce Department and NASA requesting formal investigations into allegations that Bush administration political appointees suppressed evidence linking global warming to increased hurricane intensity…

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=DemsCll4InvstgtnGWEvdncSpprssn#DemsCll4InvstgtnGWEvdncSpprssn

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that until about 1989 concern over climate change was broadly bi-partisan (this is NOT to say that the people running Reagan were ‘greenies’ – they were not).  From 1989 we see serious efforts to silence or sideline top scientists (Hansen, Bolin) and to rile up a culture war. This was under George H.W. Bush.

The specific context was HW’s son, Dumbya – sorry, Dubya – took it to the next level. James Hansen, for example, was on the receiving end of many efforts to sideline/silence him.

What I think we can learn from this is that the people running the show are greedy, stupid, selfish, have no respect for impact science (while loving production science).

What happened next – 

Launtberg held hearings the following year – 

The War on Science went on, and has accelerated dramatically in the nine months – everybody knows the good guys lost…

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: 

September 29, 1969 – British Prime Minister Harold Wilson blah blah “second industrial revolution” blah blah pollution blah blah

September 29, 2000 – On campaign trail, George Bush says power plants will require carbon dioxide cuts

September 29, 2007 – World’s first nuclear power station is demolished 

Categories
Activism

September 28, 2021 – Greta Thunberg and “blah blah blah”

Four years ago, on this day, September 28th 2021, Greta Thunberg gave her “blah blah blah” speech 

Greta Thunberg has excoriated global leaders over their promises to address the climate emergency, dismissing them as “blah, blah, blah”.

She quoted statements by Boris Johnson: “This is not some expensive, politically correct, green act of bunny hugging”, and Narendra Modi: “Fighting climate change calls for innovation, cooperation and willpower” but said the science did not lie.

Carbon emissions are on track to rise by 16% by 2030, according to the UN, rather than fall by half, which is the cut needed to keep global heating under the internationally agreed limit of 1.5C.

Build back better. Blah, blah, blah. Green economy. Blah blah blah. Net zero by 2050. Blah, blah, blah,” she said in a speech to the Youth4Climate summit in Milan, Italy, on Tuesday. “This is all we hear from our so-called leaders. Words that sound great but so far have not led to action. Our hopes and ambitions drown in their empty promises.”

‘Blah, blah, blah’: Greta Thunberg lambasts leaders over climate crisis | Climate crisis | The Guardian

And here’s a video

‘Blah Blah Blah’: Greta Thunberg Dismisses World Leaders’ Climate Rhetoric

Kayfabe, innit?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that Thunberg’s “school strikes” had started in late 2018, and caught the public imagination.

The specific context was the “world saving” Glasgow COP was about to happen, and the bullshit and hopium levels were rising to a dangerous level.

What I think we can learn from this is that “blah blah blah” is a pretty good soundbite. Greta’s got game.

What happened next – we kept blah blah blahing.  Greta has added Palestine to her short list of causes, to her credit.

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

September 28, 1977 – John Mason being an idiot again. – All Our Yesterdays

September 28, 1997 – Australian denialist spouting tosh to his US mates.

September 28, 2000 – Liberal MP goes full cooker on Kyoto as threat to sovereignty.

September 28, 2007 – Bush invokes “technology” to fix climate. Like morons everywhere.

September 28, 2008 – “Wake Up Freak Out” posted online

Categories
Austria

September 28, 1992 – IIASA again

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 28th, 1992,

Costs, Impacts, and Benefits of CO2 Mitigation.

Proceedings of a Workshop Held on 28–30 Sept. 1992 at IIASA

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that IIASA had been established in the early 1970s as a way for scientists on either side of the “Iron Curtain” to meet and share notes.  IIASA was one of the key places where discussions about energy and climate were happening in the mid-1970s – it’s where, for example, the idea of CCS was broached.

The specific context was that the conference was planned and announced before the Earth Summit, so will have been one of the first opportunities for scientists and some policy-makers to take stock, and look at the implications of what had been agreed.

What I think we can learn from this is that the “smartest” people in the room haven’t been able to prevent civilisational failure – maybe they aren’t all that smart, and/or have been looking at it all wrong…

What happened next – the workshops kept happening.  The conference class like their privileges.

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

September 28, 1997 – Australian denialist spouting tosh to his US mates.

September 28, 2000 – Liberal MP goes full cooker on Kyoto as threat to sovereignty.

September 28, 2007 – Bush invokes “technology” to fix climate. Like morons everywhere.

September 28, 2008 – “Wake Up Freak Out” posted online

Categories
Activism Kyoto Protocol United States of America

September 27, 2007 – Kyoto Inaction Protest

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 27th, 2007,

2007 Kyoto Protocol Inaction Demonstration, Washington D.C.

Four environmental organizations including Greenpeace, Oil Change International, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, staged a protest against climate change inaction and the Bush Administration’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Demonstrators gathered outside the State Department, where Bush was (ironically) holding an international meeting on climate change. Nearly 50 activists, including Greenpeace Executive Director John Passacantando, were arrested on civil disobedience charges, i.e. refusal to disperse.

Read more: http://www.mensjournal.com/travel/events/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-protests-in-the-u-s-20140919#ixzz3J9SD6WJ4

and more here – https://climateandcapitalism.com/2007/09/23/dc-rally-to-protest-bush-climate-change-conference/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that the US had signed up to the UNFCCC treaty in 1992, having made sure – via threatening to boycott the Earth Summit – that the text contained no commitments for reductions of emissions.

The specific context was that there was a huge industry lobbying effort in the run-up to the Kyoto conference (to be held in December 1997) to ensure that profits would not be harmed.  This effort by the green groups is part of the fight.

What I think we can learn from this – the green groups are always outspent, of course, and are up against the Western belief that “some technology will turn up at the last minute…”

What happened next – the Kyoto conference delivered a weak protocol, which the US pulled out of in 2001.  There was then an effort to create a sequel, in Copenhagen in 2009. That failed. Then, in 2015 the world-saving “Paris Agreement”, oh yes.

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: 

September 27, 1962 – “Silent Spring” published as a book

September 27, 1988 – Margaret Thatcher comes out as a lentil-eating greenie…

September 27, 1988 – UNEP should become world eco-regime

September 27, 1995 – Greenhouse progress in Australia? None. Zip. Zero.

Categories
Academia Activism Podcasts

Podcast: “Bridging the Carbon Gap – Adam Aron psychological insights for building the climate movement”

This one you should listen to. I listen to a lot of podcasts, especially on climate and energy (policy, politics, etc) and they are mostly very very mid (at best).  Here’s a recent rant about the whys of that.

This one (and another, to be reviewed soon) was the exception and perhaps almost exceptional.


It’s by a bunch of 17 year old Americans. To repeat myself , smart 17 year olds are potentially a very good source of info because they

a) have more skin in the game re: 2nd half of the 21st century

b) haven’t had obedience beaten into them by The System (“man”).

It’s a podcast by City Atlas. Who they? Well, City Altas

“was founded to help New Yorkers and the public everywhere understand and prepare for the future, as described in the reports of the IPCC, C40.org, and the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC), and to strengthen the democratic process towards equitable responses to climate change. Our emphasis is on building public energy and climate literacy as a way to create support for a fast transition to a zero carbon world.”

They interview a guy called Professor Adam Aron, (personal website here) who was on one academic track (cognitive neuroscience) and has recently jumped to another (the psychology of collective action).

They interview Aron about, well, building social movements and for once from an academic it isn’t banalities, generalities and apple pie.

The transcript (not quite tidy and unhyperlinked – I have added those) is here.

The first bit that made me sit up and take real notice was this

“There’s a very beautiful example of this, given there’s a book called Let This Radicalize You by Haber and Kaba,  two women of color in Chicago. And in one of the chapters, I think, Kelly Hays describes how they’re busy, Miriam tries to bring her into a struggle to try and get restitution for victims of torture by the Chicago Police. It’s called reparations. Now this is back in 2014 and in that chapter, Kelly explains, you know, I didn’t think we could win. There’s no way that we would win this thing, but I nevertheless joined Miriam in her struggle anyway, even though I very much doubted we could win, in fact, they ended up winning. They actually ended up getting restitution from the Chicago Police. Kind of amazing story. So why did Kelly join Miriam? And she says, Well, I joined Miriam because I thought it would be meaningful and generative. We had a history of trust. I thought I would have an adventure. I thought that I would learn things by doing the process. I thought that I would discover sort of the limits of my courage. I would develop new skills. So I think this phenomenon of social obligation to each other and how we build that in small groups is kind of a key part of how to get the larger social mobilization.”

On the barriers facing academics (YO, THIERRY!)

“we actually published a paper last year in 2024 with first authors, Fabian Dablander, a brilliant young guy from the Netherlands and colleagues. And it was a survey of over 9000 academics and scientists, sort of trying to understand, you know, what are the barriers to them acting”

Aron isn’t pollyann-ish about the difficulties facing us as a species, and the barriers facing social movement organisations.

“But I think more broadly, there’s a whole suite of issues, the sort of lonely, atomized and fragmented reality in which we find ourselves. I referred to that earlier. This kind of I’m all alone and with my family in my house, or, you know, everything society is telling me, I just need to get ahead and get my brand and develop myself as an entrepreneur, I’m kind of deterritorialized from the place, I don’t belong anywhere. I’m a consumer. I’m locked in this kind of, you know, hyper-consumption machine, and I just need to kind of selfishly take care of myself. I mean, there’s enormous pressures on people to have that attitude psychologically. I think that is one of our major barriers, and one of the major reasons people aren’t acting, but I think also people don’t know what to do, even people who completely get that global heating is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, who understand, as many adults do, who have children, that this is really a threat now to people’s livelihoods and wellbeing and their kids lives in the next few decades, people don’t know what to do. I think that’s a really that gets back to a bigger question you asked me about, how do we mobilize the wider society? Because there’s myriad things people can do, but we really need them to act together towards really strong policy.”


Sure, he doesn’t talk about emotacycles or the smugosphere, or ego-fodderification, but what kind of depressive maniac does that anyway.

Does the interviewer always follow up on the interesting stuff Aron says? No, she sticks to her list of questions but a) that’s okay and b) they are good questions.  Over time, I suspect she will develop the skills and confidence start to go down (and come out of) rabbit holes with interviewees. (NB there is absolutely nothing wrong with what she is doing now).

Is this podcast worth your time? This episode, hell yes, and I have high hopes for the others in the series.

Categories
Australia

September 26, 1970 – Medical Journal of Australia

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 26th, 1970, the Medical Journal of Australia runs an article on “Notes on Some Aspects of Pollution”.

“The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased by 14% since 1960. If it continues to build up at anything like that rate, it could, by the end of the century, form a blanket around the earth, raising the temperature appreciably, turning the tropics into hothouses, making the temperate zones tropical, and beginning to melt the polar ice caps. If the trend continued until the ice caps were completely melted, all maritime cities would be drowned, and the surf that now beats on Bondi beach would be beating on the lower slopes of the Blue Mountains.”

26 Sep 1970 Dark, medical journal of australia more on him here – https://bluemlocalstudies.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/dr-eric-payton-dark/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that there was a global ecological awareness/concern springing up.

The specific context was from late 1969 carbon dioxide build up was mentioned among all the other dangers facing us. It had been on ABC radio in September 1969, and was popping up in articles like these.

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve had warnings about carbon dioxide build-up for a lot longer than most people realise.

What happened next: The warnings were, of course, ignored. From 1988 onwards, there have been various games of kayfabe.

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: 

September 26, 1969 – Death on All Fronts, says Allen Ginsberg – All Our Yesterdays

September 26, 1989 – Australian Union body tries to add green to red…

September 26, 1998 – Howard decision only to ratify Kyoto if US does leaks.

September 26, 2007 – GetUp spoof Howard’s climate greenwash – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

September 26, 1950 – Operation Sea-Spray

Seventy five years ago, on this day, September 26th, 1950,

On 26 and 27 September 1950, the U.S. Navy conducted a secret experiment named “Operation Sea-Spray” in which balloons filled with S. marcescens were released and burst over urban areas of the San Francisco Bay Area in California. Although the Navy later claimed the bacteria were harmless, beginning on September 29, 11 patients at a local hospital developed very rare, serious urinary tract infections. One of the afflicted patients, Edward J. Nevin, died.[27] Cases of pneumonia in San Francisco also increased after S. marcescens was released.[28][29] (That the simulant bacteria caused these infections and death has never been conclusively established.) Nevin’s son and grandson lost a lawsuit they brought against the government between 1981 and 1983, on the grounds that the government is immune,[30] and that the chance that the sprayed bacteria caused Nevin’s death was minute.[31]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 310ppm. As of 2025, 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 was the “Cold War” and all the “national security” stuff was offering opportunities to conduct wild experiments with pretty much no oversight or risk of exposure.  So scientists went wild.

What I think we can learn from this  That when governments bang on about “national security”, watch out for your health. Or watch it decline because – absent an extremely vigorous civil society – you are gonna get used as some kind of guinea pig.

What happened next

Well, here’s this from wikipedia.

In the Senate subcommittee hearings in 1977, the Army revealed:

  • Between 1949 and 1969, open-air tests of biological agents were conducted 239 times. In 80 of those experiments, the Army said it used live bacteria that its researchers at the time thought were harmless. In the others, it used inert chemicals to simulate bacteria.
  • In the 1950s, army researchers dispersed Serratia on Panama City and Key West Florida with no known illnesses resulting.
  • In the 1950s, army researchers dispersed zinc cadmium sulfide, a known cancer-causing agent, over Minnesota and other Midwestern states to see how far they would spread in the atmosphere. The particles were detected more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km) away in New York state.
  • Bacillus globigii, never shown to be harmful to people, was released in San Francisco, New York, Washington, D.C., and along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, among other places.
  • In New York, military researchers in 1966 spread Bacillus subtilis variant Niger, also believed to be harmless, in the subway system by dropping lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto tracks in stations in midtown Manhattan. The bacteria were carried for miles throughout the subway system. Army officials concluded in a January 1968 report that: “Similar covert attacks with a pathogenic disease-causing agent during peak traffic periods could be expected to expose large numbers of people to infection and subsequent illness or death.”[17]
  • In a May 1965 secret release of Bacillus globigii at Washington’s National Airport and its Greyhound Lines bus terminal, more than 130 passengers were exposed to the bacteria and traveled to 39 cities in seven states in the two weeks following the mock attack.[5]

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: 

September 26, 1969 – Death on All Fronts, says Allen Ginsberg – All Our Yesterdays

September 26, 1989 – Australian Union body tries to add green to red…

September 26, 1998 – Howard decision only to ratify Kyoto if US does leaks.

Categories
Australia Coal Technophilia

September 25, 1995 – Clean Coal. No, seriously.

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 26th, 1995,

Senator Cook opens CRC that “will help maintain Australia’s export coal trade in an increasingly competitive and environmentally sensitive international market”

Cook, P. 1995 Black coal goes green at new Cooperative Research Centre. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that Australia had become the world’s biggest coal exporter in 1984, and Australian politicians had been trying to “square the circle” with environment concerns since the late 1980s. See for example Bob Hawke in January 1989.

The specific context was that there were various research institutions happy to relieve the taxpayer of cash – god forbid industry fund research and development in a meaningful way…

What I think we can learn from this is that the taxpayer is always on the hook.  

What happened next  “Clean Coal”?  Yeah, like dry water.

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: 

September 25, 1980 -Reagan turns out to be an ignorant fool. Who knew? 

September 25, 1991- European Commission proposes a carbon tax…

September 25, 2003 – Bob Carr “strikes greenhouse deal” with European investors