Categories
Australia Denial

January 23, 1992 – denialist bullshit in the Fin

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 23rd 1992 the allegedly fact based business newspaper, the Australian Financial Review” (“the Fin”) published more denialist shite, including the inevitable quote from Pat Michaels.

SEA levels may be unlikely to rise significantly for many decades to come, but the flood of published material about the enhanced greenhouse effect has become a matter of serious concern.

The flood threatens to inundate small libraries around the world and force the larger ones to build retaining walls in their periodical sections. Fortunately, the main book collections are so far unthreatened.

But while most of us can only watch the increasing flood levels of articles about the effect and wonder what it all means, there are signs that the worst may be over….

Lawson, M. 1992. Cooling the global warming predictions. Australian Financial Review, 23 January . SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Fin had been running denialist hit pieces, which was very common in the business press this time, even in the quality business press, like the FT allegedy part of the battle of ideas.

The denialists were very good at calling themselves truth tellers and claiming that they were being censored and silenced. See Boykoff and Boykoff 2004 “Balance as bias” – it is really good on this. And the denialists also knew how to give the elite and business press what they wanted, or what was needed to get something printed. So getting a prestigious American over to yap some bollocks was still enough to get published. 

What we can learn from this is that the denialists were cunning and persistent. And of course, the organizations were well-funded.

What happened next? The denial kept going, kept escalating, and reached an early peak in 97 before Kyoto. Then the Lavoisier group came along, just to stiffen Howard’s anti Kyoto spine and then it exploded into public in 2009-11. And here we are. 

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: 

January 23, 1957 – New Zealand scientist warns about consequences of carbon dioxide build-up  

January 23, 1995 – The Larsen B starts to break up with us.. (Ice, Ice, baby)

Categories
Australia

January 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse action will send Australia to the poorhouse”

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 22nd 1992, the delayers and deniers deployed the dollar dilemma argument,

CANBERRA: Australia would be sent to the poorhouse by the Federal Government’s attitude towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was claimed yesterday.

It would be “grossly wrong” for Australia to do this at the expense of living standards in a time of recession, said the chief executive of the Australian Institution of Engineers, Mr John Enfield.

He criticised the Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, for acting “prematurely” on the issue, before further research confirmed or disproved predictions on the greenhouse effect.

Chamberlin, P. 1992. Green govt warned of poorhouse effect. Sydney Morning Herald, January, 23 p3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that although the battle against the carbon tax had really already been won, not everyone had gotten the memo. And anyway, they want to lay down some suppressing fire and that’s what was happening here, in the immediate period before the Rio Earth Summit. Industry is determined to dampen down government ambition because – nightmare – scenario -rush of blood to the head might get the government promising things (unlikely under Keating!).

What we learn. Assholes gonna asshole. 

What happened next World leaders all went to Rio (except Paul Keating, the only OECD nation leader not to attend) and they signed the empty treaty. And you know, the emissions kept climbing and you know the rest.

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: 

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

January 22, 2002 – Exxon and on and on

Categories
Greenland

January 21, 1968 – Ultima Fule on Ultima Thule

Fifty six ago, on this day, January 21st 1968,

“ an aircraft accident, sometimes known as the Thule affair or Thule accident (/ˈtuːli/; Danish: Thuleulykken), involving a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52 bomber occurred near Thule Air Base in the Danish territory of Greenland. The aircraft was carrying four B28FI thermonuclear bombs on a Cold War “Chrome Dome” alert mission over Baffin Bay when a cabin fire forced the crew to abandon the aircraft before they could carry out an emergency landing at Thule Air Base. Six crew members ejected safely, but one who did not have an ejection seat was killed while trying to bail out. The bomber crashed onto sea ice in North Star Bay,[a] Greenland, causing the conventional explosives aboard to detonate and the nuclear payload to rupture and disperse, resulting in radioactive contamination of the area.“

(Lind et al., 2015)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Americans were busy rattling their dicks and swinging their sabres and the world was consistently on a nuclear knife-edge, to use a cliche, and all across the world B52s with nukes were having near misses. And this was just another. 

What we learn is that the waste remains, the waste spreads. We have poisoned this beautiful planet. “We” being sabre swingers and those who benefit from that sabre swinging and stay silent. And now everything has been ruined  and you know the rest. 

What happened next? We almost tried ourselves in 1983-4. Things got dialled back a bit. See also Barry Commoner on radiation building up in the system. 

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

Lind, O. C., Salbu, B., Janssens, K., Proost, K., & Dahlgaard, H. (2005). Characterization of uranium and plutonium containing particles originating from the nuclear weapons accident in Thule, Greenland, 1968. Journal of environmental radioactivity, 81(1), 21-32

see article here – “https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265931X04003297

Also on this day: 

January 21, 1960 – at least 435 coal miners killed in apartheid South Africa incident #BusinessAsUsual   #Racism   #Profiteering   #GlobalApartheid

January 21, 2010 – The flub that sank a thousand policies #auspol

Categories
United Kingdom

January 20, 2014 – Gummer sledges “green extremists”

2014 years ago, on this day, January 20th, 2014, John Gummer calls some green extremists close to trotskyists” in a Guardian interview, 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that environmentalists, especially with Paris coming up and the coalition government having “cut the green crap” were getting more outspoken about the need for serious action. And Gummer was pushing back against this. 

What we can learn is that establishment greens like Deben, and so forth, have a problem when the physics and the reality start to show that their incrementalist measures haven’t worked, won’t work can’t work. They need to lash out at someone; they’re not going to lash out at themselves, they’re not going to lash out against capitalism or question further industrialization and economic growth, because there are psychological and career consequences for doing that. So they have to lash out at someone and lashing out at so-called green Trotskyists. is risk free and feels good. So they do it. The cost is of course, that they create a caricature, a straw man or woman – green straw, which is not healthy, and everyone’s screwed. 

What happened next? 

Gummer, or Lord Deben chaired the Climate Change Committee until 2022. And the emissions kept climbing and you know the rest.

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: 

January 20, 1992 – Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

Categories
Australia

January 19,1992 – they gambled, we lost

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 19th, 1992,

“One of the CSIRO’s top scientists says doubters of the greenhouse effect are gambling with the future of the world. Dr Graeme Pearman, coordinator of the CSIRO’s climate change research program, said yesterday there was little doubt global warming was a reality according to all the best scientific models.”

Anon, 1992. Greenhouse cynics gambling with future. Canberra Times, January 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the denialist campaigns in Australia, helped by imported American scientists, had been successful. And the Hawke and then Keating governments had significantly softened their stance, their already weak appetite for economic measures, such as a carbon tax. Pearman, who had been studying the climate issue for 20 years by this stage, knew what was at stake and was publicly pushing back. 

What we can learn from this is that scientists have been correctly predicting that the gamble was going on and correctly predicting that there might be losers in that gamble. 

What happened next is that a carbon tax came back onto the agenda in 1994-95. It was again defeated, then tax became ETS in the late 90s. Everyone was talking about it. And then finally Tony Abbott killed it off. More broadly Pearman has been very public about the struggles back then.

And we are toast. 

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: 

January 19, 1968 – Engineers are not ecologists…

January 19, 1976 – The carbon consequences of cement get an early discussion.

January 19, 2015 -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

Categories
United Kingdom

January 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

Sixty years ago, on this day, January 18th, 1964, Nature published an article about the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) meeting in September 1963, at which Peter Ritchie-Calder (yes, him again!) had spoken about CO2 build-up,

 “Discharge of combustion products into the atmosphere had increased its content of carbon dioxide by 10 per cent in a century. The ‘green house effect’ could be expected to increase average mean temperature by 3·6° C in the next 4Q-50 years. This would radically affect the extent of glaciers and ice-caps with resultant rise in sea- and river-levels and increasing precipitation. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by 1963 people like Ritchie Calder were speaking publicly about CO2 buildup. It was no secret among the scientific elite in the United Kingdom. And well. You know, Nature was covering it. This is probably before John Maddox came along as editor.

What we learn is that there’s an entire history of admissions about CO2 build up. It’s not a secret, it’s not considered outlandish. It’s just one of those things. This is also two years after Mariner had gone to Venus and captured a lot of information. 

What happened next? It would be 1967 before the CO2 issue really received a boost with the BBC programme Challenge and so forth. 

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: 

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
Australia

January 17, 1970 – The Bulletin reprints crucial environment/climate article

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 17, 1970, the Australian magazine the Bulletin ran a front page story,

 Global Pollution; What on earth are the scientists doing

It was a reprint of a recent article by the Scottish thinker Peter Ritchie-Calder, called “Mortgaging the Old Homestead” which appeared in “Foreign Affairs,” the journal of the then hugely influential Council on Foreign Relations.

That article, which was also reprinted in Sports Illustrated and elsewhere, contains the following paragraphs (which were in the Bulletin too).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian magazine The Bulletin liked to sell copies of course, and it had gotten hooked into the eco-trend that had started in late 1969. And therefore, there was a cover you can see here and large excerpts from an article by Ritchie Calder called Mortgaging the Old Homestead. And yes, there was explicit mention of carbon dioxide build up. So, anyone reading a popular magazine in Australia would have been aware of the potential issue. 

What we can learn is that by late 1969, the eco fears were serious and large. We can learn that Ritchie Calder was a prominent public intellectual. And we can learn that Australians knew about carbon dioxide build up. There had after all, been in September of 69, various symposia, conferences, radio programmes, you name it. We knew we flipping knew. 

What happened next. There were all sorts of events, protests, laws, ministers appointed, but by 1973, the eco fad had run its course; everyone was bored, frustrated. The battles that then happened were, understandably, about local issues such as Concorde and whether it should fly to Australia and logging and Lake Pedder. 

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: 

January 17th – A religious perspective on climate action

January 17, 2001 – Enron engineers energy “blackouts” to gouge consumers

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 16, 1919 – banning things that people like turns out not to work

One hundred and five years ago, on this day, January 16th 1919, a social movement got what it wanted. Utopia did not ensue.

The United States ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, authorizing Prohibition in the United States one year after ratification. 

Legislation versus habit… ends badly… Baptists and bootleggers blah blah

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 303ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Temperance groups had been pushing for decades for a law banning booze. And they’d gotten their way. And of course, this meant an explosion of organised crime because people still wanted to drink. And health implications from bathtub gin, the bootleggers’ violence, you name it. So not everything that a popular – or at least powerful – social movement wants and pushes through the legislature is automatically good or democratic, who knew? 

What we learn is that there is such a thing as “Baptists and bootleggers,” there can be an unholy symbiosis between religious zealots and banning things to create black markets. Yes, that is a right-wing talking point against climate legislation. 

I suppose the other thing we learned is that banning stuff can feel good. And certainly with the case of fossil fuels, you really need to push the alternatives hard and stop the people trying to stop you. Am I making any sense? 

What happened next. Prohibition lasted for 14 years, gave us organised crime, gun battles, gangsters, you name it. And then one of the first things that Franklin Roosevelt did, upon taking office, was to abolish it and everyone could get legally drunk again. What an extraordinary episode in human history, one that I haven’t thought about enough. 

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: 

January 16, 1995: There’s power in a (corporate) union #auspol

January 16, 2003 – Chicago Climate Exchange names founding members

Categories
United States of America

January 15, 1981 – US calls for effort to combat global environmental problems

Forty-three years ago, on this day, January 15th 1981, as the Reagan gang were about to take over, there was a plaintive plea…

Shabecoff, Philip. “U.S. Calls for Efforts To Combat Global Environmental Problems.” New York Times, January 15, 1981.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context 

This is the last throw of the dice for the Council on Environmental Quality under Jimmy Carter. It had done some good stuff. The CEQ staffer Gus Speth had spent the last four years trying to push climate up the agenda. There had also been the Global 2000 report, which was produced by a separate body. Carter had lost the November 1980 election to Reagan who literally does not give a damn about conserving anything but is keen for ever greater exploitation.

What we can learn from this is that we knew what needed to be done. And we kept electing people who didn’t want to do it because they appealed to our ego, or our greed or something. 

What happened next? Reagan came in and shat all over climate action, environment action. See James Watt, etc, etc. And the emissions kept climbing and it was 1988 before presidential candidates were forced to speak about it. (There’s a more interesting story of Republican senators like John Chafee and so forth, actually understanding what was at stake in the mid-80s.) And the journo who wrote this story, Shabecoff? He also wrote the June 24th 1988 story on 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: 

Jan 15, 1971 – greenwash before it was called greenwash #propaganda

January 15, 1990 – A political lunch with enormous #climate consequences for Australia #PathDependency #Denial  

Categories
United States of America

January 14, 1962 – As much truth as one can bear, James Baldwin

Sixty two years ago, on this day, January 14th 1962, American thinker and writer James Baldwin delivers a crucial bit of wisdom –  “Not everything that can be faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” – in a New York Times opinion piece.

AS MUCH TRUTH AS ONE CAN BEAR: To Speak Out About the World as It Is, New York Times Jan 14, 1962 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 318ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that James Baldwin had fled the United States to France, simply to stay alive. Being a queer, smart black man well, you were in a “bummer of a birthmark Hal” situation, weren’t you? But he’d obviously stayed in touch with what was happening. And my god, he was a brilliant essayist, and thinker. And the reason I’m citing this is that it contains the apparently first use of his crucial phrase, “not everything that can be faced, can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

What we can learn is that there are smart people all around and we ought to pay more attention to them and to their ideas.

What happened next. Baldwin was heavily involved in advocating for civil rights. There is a movie that you simply must see. called I am not your Negro. Baldwin died in 1987.

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: 

Jan 14, 1972 – “A Blueprint for Survival” hits the headlines

January 14, 2010 – Investors hold UN summit on #climate risk