Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

 June 10, 2015 – Abbott and Jones versus windfarms

Ten years ago, on this day, June 10th, 2015 soon to be ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott was being, well, Tony Abbott.

Bill Shorten accuses PM of hurting investment in renewables as Abbott says his government is working to reduce the number of ‘visually awful’ turbines

Tony Abbott finds windfarms visually awful and agrees they may have “potential health impacts”, and says the deal on the renewable energy target was designed to reduce their numbers as much as the current Senate would allow.

Speaking to the Sydney radio host Alan Jones – a long-term windfarm critic – the prime minister said: “I do take your point about the potential health impact of these things … when I’ve been up close to these windfarms not only are they visually awful but they make a lot of noise.

Taylor, L. 2015. Tony Abbott agrees windfarms may have ‘potential health impacts’. The Guardian, 10 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 403ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Tony Abbott is an idiot

The specific context was that Tony Abbott is an idiot and that his outriders and enablers are also idiots. Often they are smart, and have no excuse for what they did, beyond greed.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we choose the most idiotic to lead us (see the psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion on this).

As “active citizens” we should watch out for allowing idiots to lead us.

Academics might like to ponder – their role in puffing up idiots to lead us.

What happened next

xxx

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

June 10, 1966 – Seaborg’s commencement address

Fifty nine years ago, on this day, June 10th, 1966, the head of the Atomic Energy Commission (hardly a hippie!) gave a commencement address that name-checked carbon dioxide build-up,

10 June 1966 

Seaborg commencement address at San Diego (see Maddow 2019, Blowout)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 321ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the issue had been “lurking” in the newspapers (especially but not exclusively the US ones) since the early 1950s.  

The specific context was

By 1965 it had “broken through” – getting name-checked in the special message of LBJ to Congress about Natural Beauty/Pollution, and then getting a whole chapter in the big fat report released by the Presidents Scientific Advisory Council in late 1965.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we knew

As “active citizens” we knew

Academics might like to ponder – their role in helping people not know.

What happened next

By the late 1960s the carbon dioxide build-up problem was being used by proponents of nuclear (including Seaborg) as a point for them and against coal. Thee years to the day, in fact, there was an article in the New York Times…

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

 June 10, 1969 – pro-nukers mention carbon dioxide in a New York Times article – All Our Yesterdays

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 9, 2010 – Gina’s protest

Fifteen  years ago, on this day, June 9th, 2010, an Australian billionaire took part in a political protest. True story. 

Australian billionaires take to the streets for tax protest

It was, by any measure, a most unusual rally. Many of the placard-waving protesters gathered in a Perth park wore suits and ties, and impassioned speeches were delivered from the back of a flat-bed truck by two billionaires, including Australia’s richest woman.

Marks, K. 2010. Australian billionaires take to the streets for tax protest. The Independent, 10 June.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australian-billionaires-take-to-the-streets-for-tax-protest-1997284.html

Some video footage here – Axe the tax rally Perth – Kevin Rudd

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was extractivism has been Australia’s “thing.”  First via imported species (beef, sheep) and then later mining – coal, iron ore, latterly natural gas.

The specific context was that desperate failure Kevin Rudd (Prime Minister at the time) had torched his reputation and the hopes of millions of Australians with a truly moronically cowardly “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” which was killed off by Tony Abbott (and Rudd). Too spineless to call a double-dissolution election, Rudd pivoted to a tax on miners (which is, of course, not a bad idea in and of itself).

The miners responded. Of course they did. This was one very small gaudy part of it. Far more important was the TV adverts etc.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that we don’t live in functional democracies.

As “active citizens” money talks. Choose your “leaders” wisely.

What happened next. Rudd was toppled by his deputy, Julia Gillard, who uncharacteristically lost her cool after being smeared in the Sydney Morning Herald by a journalist who clearly had been briefed by Rudd’s henchman.  That set in train an unstoppable leadership challenge (Rudd was absolutely despised by most of the parliamentary Labor Party).  Gillard then ran up the white flag and the miners did not, in fact, pay more tax.

Gillard then called an early election, which she probably would have won but for these mysterious anti-Gillard leaks – “the calls are coming from inside the house.”  Who could have had means, motive and opportunity for doing that? I guess we’ll never know…

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Business Responses United Kingdom

June 9, 2005 – Capitalism asks G8 leaders to save the world

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 9th, 2005, 24 companies say they would quite like to governments save the world (so they can continue making money),

24 large multinationals, including U.S. firms Hewlett-Packard and Ford, issued a statement in which they supported climate change measures, and pressured the G8 to adopt climate stabilization targets and set up a long-term, global climate change regime that would extend to 2030 at least, including a market-based system of emissions trading (World Economic Forum, 2005).

(Kolk and Pinkse, 2007:202)

Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. 2007. Multinationals’ Political Activities on Climate Change. Business & Society Vol. 46, (2),  pp.201-228.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that

a) The G7 had first mentioned carbon dioxide build-up at its 1979 meeting in Tokyo, and then again in 1985 in Bonn. b) Business had pushed hard against any climate action in 1990-1 and now, fifteen years later, some of them were having a few second thoughts.

The specific context was that there was now an EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol were about to begin. But the major stumbling block was President Cheney. Sorry, “Bush.”

Prime Minister Tony Blair, hosting the G8 and keen for discussion to be Anything But Iraq, will have welcomed this. And his consiglieres may well have had a hand in making it happen – it’s a very Blair-ite stunt.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – we like to believe we are the good guys. It ain’t necessarily so.

As “active citizens” – business will always do this – deny costs, squeal about action, then demand someone else do something to clean up their mess.

Academics might like to ponder – their role in helping government and business versus the punters.

What happened next – more warm words (if not from the Cheney gang).

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

June 9, 1966 – Lovelock’s report

Fifty-nine  years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1966 , James Lovelock wrote a report.

Lovelock, “Combustion of Fossil Fuel: Large Scale Atmospheric Effects,” 9 June 1966,

box 34, Archive Collection of Professor James Lovelock, Science Museum Library and Archives,

Science Museum at Wroughton; hereafter abbreviated “CFF.”  See Aronowsky Critical Inquiry

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 321ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from 1953 scientists, with Gilbert Plass in the vanguard, then Roger Revelle etc, were banging on about carbon dioxide.  By 1966 lots and lots of people knew about the outline of the problem.  What Lovelock was commissioned to do was no huge biggie…

The specific context was that Lovelock was asked to do this by Shell, which had had a “nothing to see here, really” article in New Scientist in 1958.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – we knew plenty.

As “active citizens”  we knew plenty.

Academics might like to ponder – knowledge doesn’t amount to power or efficacy. But who cares, as long as you get citations, eh?

What happened next Lovelock’s paper was read by top UK scientist Graham Sutton (formerly of the Met Office) in January 1967, and a senior civil servant (and possible spy?) Victor Rothschild, said it should be kept shtum (LINK).

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Air Pollution United States of America

June 9, 1967 – New York Times reports on temperature drop…

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1967,

“Temperature dip tied to particles,” New York Times, June 9.

 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in the northern hemisphere, at least, temperatures had been dropping. We now know that that was because of all the extra aerosols sulphates in the air, bouncing a certain amount of the sun’s heat away. Keeping the winters nice and chill. And this seemed like a problem for the theory of carbon dioxide induced warming. It wasn’t but it’s still being held up as one.

What we learn is that it wasn’t crystal clear. People like Keeling and Plass would not deny. There was still uncertainty.

What happened next? There was for the next five years or so, the whole Ice/Heat debate. Things started edging towards the heat trap side. C02 buildup was reported in The Times as a cause of concern in 1972. And then, by the late 70s, it was clear what was going to happen. 

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: 

October 9, 1979 – Hermann Flohn warns Irish of “possible consequences of a man-made warming”

October 9, 1991 – Greens get labeled religious fanatics, don’t like it.

Categories
Australia

June 8, 1990 – Greenpeace versus the polluters

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1990, Business Review Weekly reminded subscribers who the enemy was…

In the battle for hearts and minds, the environmentalists have it all over companies. The business sector’s difficulty in grappling with the environment issue will result, sooner or later, in a company director finding himself in the dock facing charges over pollution. Both NSW and Victoria now have legislation that can render executives and directors personally liable for environment protection offences. Many within the environment movement are looking for a test case of this legislation.

In this week’s cover story BRW writer Matthew Stevens examines the challenge that Greenpeace is throwing out to Australian companies. As Stevens reports, the local branch of the international Greenpeace organisation has thoroughly reorganised itself and is armed with the latest techniques developed in the US for direct action against companies. Greenpeace is out to achieve the greatest public humiliation of those it chooses to expose.

Uren, D. 1990. Editor’s note. BRW, 8 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that climate change had finally “broken through” in 1988, almost 10 years later than it might have (You can write a plausible alternative history that has it all kicking off in 1979-1980).

The specific context was that the Australian mining and more-general-capitalist interests had assumed the “fad” about the Greenhouse would blow itself out. By the end of 1989 it was clear it wasn’t going to, and so the fight back began in earnest…

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that people with money and power like things the way they are, more or less (while always thinking about how it would be nice to have MORE money and MORE power).

As “active citizens” that there may be a delay between an issue breaking through and the response – though this is perhaps less the case now with instantaneous comms and vast networks of tooled-up, cashed-up junk tanks…

Academics might like to ponder why they rarely warn the punters about this. Could it be they are too dim to even see the pattern?

What happened next  The fossil interests fought the greenies to a standstill – not intellectually, they lost all the arguments – but by tapping their friends in the Federal bureaucracy on the shoulder.  The “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process ended in farce in 1992.  The “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” was none of those things. The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed and the consequences, eventually, arrived. We are in the Fafocene.

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973.  – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

June 8, 1981- “the First Detection of Carbon Dioxide Effect” workshop begins

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1981, a workshop began. What was it on? Well

“The First Detection of Carbon Dioxide Effects:” Workshop Summary 8-10 June 1981,

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26223159

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the mid-1970s onwards, scientists were beginning to look closely at what rising carbon dioxide levels would ultimately do.  Various scientific bodies (NCAR, National Academy of Science, AAAS, Swedish outfits) were looking closely.  The 1979 First World Climate Conference, hosted by the World Meteorological Organisation, could have set the ball rolling, but there was blockage from the likes of John Mason of the UK Met Office.

The specific context was that various American scientists were pushing ahead.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that our systems for finding out about the world aren’t bad. Our systems for stopping damaging it, they needed some work.

As “active citizens” is that there’s not much mileage in just adding “more science” to the recipe for social change. We tried that. 

Academics might like to ponder their role in all this.

What happened next – The scientists kept science-ing.  By 1985 they were alarmed enough – and had credibility from ozone – to start shouting.

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973.  – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Incumbent strategies

“Energy realism” is civilisational suicide

So much of the world of these dudes is based on the idea that the "realistic", "pragmatic" and "rational" thing to do is to commit civilisational suicide by boiling ourselves alive.

— Ketan Joshi (@ketanjoshi.co) 2025-06-07T05:44:09.769Z

The days when energy companies could flirt with outright climate denial are gone (outside of the US, but the US has always been an outliar). The evidence has piled up, the reputational and access-to-policymaker risks too high.Why run the risks when you can achieve the same results, enact the same predatory delay, by pushing the line of ‘realism’?

you paint yourself an adult, a sensible centrist and your critics as hysterical children. It’s a win-win.

On the question o practical/pragmatic, the best thing I ever read was this-

“… the word praktisch had been a two-syllable club he’d been beaten with by fellow students and teachers and businessmen and clergy all through the nightmare years. “Stop being such a god-damned idealist! Be practical!” “Practical means I know right from wrong but I’m too fucking scared to do what’s right so I commit crimes or permit crimes and I say I’m only being practical. Practical means coward. Practical frequently means stupid. Someone is too goddamn dumb to realize the consequences of what he’s doing and he hides under practical. It also means corrupt: I know what I ought to do but I’m being paid to do something different so I call it practical. Practical is an umbrella for everything lousy people do.”

(Quote from Brendan Phibbs amazing book The Other Side of Time: a Combat Surgeon in World War II Little Brown & Co, New York (1987)

you can read more here…

Categories
Australia

June 7, 1990 – Tasman Institute and a Nature letter about weathering

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 7th, 1990 a neoliberal attack-tank was launched, and a letter about weathering also appeared,

A privately funded economic think tank and joint venture between Australia and New Zealand called the Tasman Institute was launched in Melbourne yesterday.

Anon. 1990. Trans tasman think tank backed by big business. New Zealand Herald, 8 June p.5.

And

Letter in Nature about silicate and enhanced weathering by Sieffert https://www.nature.com/articles/345486b0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that everyone was scratching their heads about what to do about th “Greenhouse Effect”

The specific context was that in Australia right-wing forces knew that they needed some new pieces on the chessboard 

What I think we can learn from this – organisations get formed to push a certain line, combat others. Once the initial impetus is gone, they may survive, but this will require them to pivot. If they can’t, they tend to die…

What happened next Tasman was a dead duck by 1997 – with Howard in the Lodge (the residence of the Australian Prime Minister) it was surplus to requirements. 

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: 

June 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC – All Our Yesterdays