Categories
Australia Business Responses Carbon Pricing

June 3, 1996 – Business Council of Australia versus even the idea of a carbon tax

On this day June 3, 1996, 29 years ago, the peak business body in the settler colony known as Australia wanted to nail yet another nail in the coffin of the carbon tax proposal that had been defeated in February 1995.

THE Business Council of Australia has asked the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics to update research conducted last year on the regional impact…

Strickland, K. 1996  Call for revision of carbon tax’s impact. The Australian, June 3, p.031

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm.  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 for this was that business was busy winning all the big policy battles, but still feared that climate action might impact their profits. Internationally, the Berlin COP had ended with a “Berlin Mandate” meaning rich nations (including Australia) were going to be expected to present plans for carbon dioxide reductions by the third COP.

The specific context was the new Liberal National Party government of John Howard was even more business-friendly and climate-action-blocking than that of the ALP’s Paul Keating. But you never know, issues can come back – especially with COP2 about to take place in Geneva – and the Business Council is here just laying down some suppressing fire.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – business interests do not care about the actual future.

As “active citizens – business interests know how to keep governments on a leash, and they rarely get sloppy/complacent.

Academics might want to ponder – their role as handmaidens to this system.

What happened next: Howard came out swinging hard against both international and national commitments. He did not get punished by the Great Australian Electorate for these acts of bastardy until 2007.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Stuff on ABARE

Stuff on John Howard

(use the search function!)

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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 3, 1970 – US Senator suggests World Ecology Unit – All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 1989 – Liberal Party to outflank Labor on #climate?!

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Categories
Activism Australia Interviews

Parents for Climate: What they do, what they are looking for.

Parents for Climate, an Australian group, kindly answered some questions!

1. What is the “origin story” of Parents for Climate – when did you begin, why?
Parents for Climate began in 2019, sparked by a simple but powerful idea: parents are a force like no other when it comes to protecting the future. A group of six rural and regional mums got together online—frustrated by government inaction and alarmed by worsening climate impacts—to create a home for parent-led climate action. Our tiny organisation wants to empower everyday families to take meaningful steps, speak up, and shift the story about who climate action is for.

2. (How) has the work of Parents for Climate shifted since it began – for what reasons?
We’ve grown from a grassroots network into a national movement that’s deeply strategic. At first, we were a small mostly-online community focused on awareness raising and community-building—now, we’re focused on influencing decision-makers and policy, supporting local leadership, and amplifying the voices of parents in public debate. That shift reflects the urgency of the climate crisis, the growing political relevance of parents, and what we’ve learned about where we can make the most impact.

3. What are the things you’ve done that you’re proudest of?

We’re proud to have helped shape public policy—like federal investments in clean energy storage and better school infrastructure. We’ve mobilized thousands of parents in electorates across the country, built powerful coalitions, and held Australia’s biggest energy companies to account for greenwashing. But just as importantly, we’ve helped countless parents move from climate anxiety to climate agency—finding purpose, connection, and hope together.

4. What, besides more money and time, is the main constraint on you being able to do more things (skills gaps, access to other resources etc) and what help are you looking for?

Like many grassroots groups, we’re stretched. We could do more with support in digital campaigning, media and design, and easy to use tools that help us scale. We’d also love more support building bridges into multicultural communities and regional networks. We’re looking for people who want to offer skills, networks, or mentoring—or who can help unlock funding or strategic partnerships.

5. What resources need to be available to concerned parents for when they talk to their kids – of different ages – about what the future holds?
Parents need age-appropriate, emotionally intelligent tools that are honest but hopeful. That might be a storybook about nature and courage for young kids, a school project toolkit for tweens, or conversation guides for teens that acknowledge fear but focus on action. Most of all, parents need to feel they’re not alone—and that there’s a community of people out there who are acting for their kids too.

6. Anything else you want to say – shout outs about upcoming events, other groups etc.
We’ve just wrapped our biggest ever campaign, Vote Like a Parent. We just forced energy giant EnergyAustralia to admit to the truth behind its marketing claims  through legal action. And we’re gearing up for new work focused on clean energy and protecting kids from the impacts of extreme heat and air pollution. A huge shout out to the parent volunteers around the country making this movement what it is. If you’re reading this and want to be part of it—come join us at parentsforclimate.org!

Categories
United States of America

June 2, 2005 – Climate change will not, in fact, be Terminated

On this day June 2nd, 2005, 20 years ago California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced an initiative to curb greenhouse gas emissions in California as a step towards addressing global warming. 

In his speech, the governor declared, “The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.”

–Arnold Schwarzenegger

San Francisco, June 2, 2005

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm.  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 for this was the US had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in early 2001, despite George W Bush’s campaign trail promise that he would regulate carbon dioxide (the real president, Dick Cheney, had other ideas).

The specific context was when the Federal government flubs an issue, various states, often including California, tries to lead – you see similar dynamics in other federal systems (Australia, Germany, whatever).

Historical context – check out the defeat of Proposition 128 – “Big Green” in November 1990.

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : PROPOSITION 128 : ‘Big Green’ Reached Too Far, Backers Say – Los Angeles Times

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – celebrity is not transferable power, necessarily.

As “active citizens” – talk is cheap

Academics might want to ponder – the way policy is, well, terminated.

What happened next: 

The emissions kept rising. The concentrations kept rising. People elected a climate denier as President. Twice. So, there’s that.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Too many to mention

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

Categories
Australia

June 2, 1977 – Australian scientists SCOPE the climate problem

On this day June 2nd 1977, 48 years ago, Australian Scientist Graeme Pearman gathered fellow scientists to tell them what had been going on.

2-3 June 1977 The Australian National Committee of the UN Study Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) held a workshop on this subject at the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics, Aspendale on June 2 and 3. The objectives of the workshop were: 

A: To communicate to the interested Australian scientific community — i) The results of the recent SCOPE meeting in Ratzeburg and the ERDA meeting in Miami on the C02 – climate problem.  (Pearman, 1977 Clean Air)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 333ppm.  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 for this was the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide build-up was going to be a Real Problem, and probably Quite Soon was just forming – a series of international meetings had taken place, and Pearman was at a couple of them.
You have to remember, this was way before email and easy communications. You couldn’t just circulate pdfs…

The specific context was that Australian scientists had been measuring C02 amounts for a few years – first on planes, and about now, at Cape Grim in Tasmania.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – we knew enough to be worried, half a century ago

As “active citizens” – we knew enough to be worried, half a century ago

Academics might want to ponder… we knew enough to be worried, half a century ago.

What happened next: xx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

The 1974 post about Australia and climate at RMets

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

June 2, 2002 – Low carbon spaces, eh… SDC RIP – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Carbon Pricing United Kingdom

June 1, 1989 – Tony Blair versus carbon pricing

On this day June 1, 1989, 36 years ago – the UK Labour party’s energy spokesman, a young ambitious MP called Tony Blair, was reported to have spoken out against a carbon tax, on the front page of the Independent.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm.  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 for this was scientists had been warning politicians for a good 10 years (longer in some places) about carbon dioxide build-up.

The specific context was that in September 1988 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had given a pivotal speech to the Royal Society in London, saying the Greenhouse Effect was indeed here. In May 1989 Blair had already spoken out saying that market forces might not be able to solve the problem. Now he was willing to say state action wouldn’t work. Anything for a headline, whatever nonsense suited the moment. Blair only was consistent when waging class wars and, er, real wars.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – the solutions to the problem were unpalatable, and because we turned from them then, well, we are now quite fubarred.

As “active citizens” – politicians in opposition oppose – no matter what is being proposed might have some merit – their need is to oppose. It’s all kayfabe.

Academics might want to ponder their complicity in this kayfabe.

What happened next: The tax idea tanked (it’s probably that its opponents within the Civil Service and Government had leaked it to help win their battle). Eventually carbon pricing did come into existence, if not to meaningful effect.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Tony Blair and the loong history…

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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 1, 1969 – “The Future is a Cruel Hoax” Commencement address – All Our Yesterdays

June 1, 1965 – Tom Lehrer warns “don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air”

June 1, 1992 – “environmental extremists” want to shut down the United States, says President Bush

June 1, 2011 – Japanese office workers into short sleeves to save the planet

Categories
Greenwash

June 1, 1970 – Public Relations versus Democracy and Ecology

On this day June 1, 1970, 55 years ago – a Public Relations flak realised there was money in the whole ecology thing – burnishing credentials etc.

Some business leaders and PR advisers warned that environmentalism might now be seized by “extremists” and the “radical left” to mobilize similar attacks on the entire business community. As PR consultant Clifford B. Reeves put it in 1970, the “environment” issue could become “a basis for a broad general attack on the entire industrial system, as well as individual companies.” Although such a broad-based critique of business and industry had not yet gained momentum, according to Reeves, environmental pollution “may be the thing that provides a basis for universal attack against private business institutions.” “As things are now shaping up,” he wrote, “industry is being cast as the villain of the piece. While its record is not all it should have been, industry has probably done more in a practical way than any other group to conserve resources and protect the environment. That story should be told more widely and forcefully, before adverse public opinion about industry hardens still further. Industry should be recognized as a willing partner in this movement, not an adversary.” Reeves urged steady progress in pollution abatement, combined with programs to publicize those voluntary efforts. He expressed hope that the “environment” could thus become a consensus issue, with industry viewed not as a villain but as a partner in the popular drive for environmental protection.

Conley, 2006 – p.70-71.

The quote is from 

Conley, 2006 ENVIRONMENTALISM CONTAINED: A HISTORY OF CORPORATE RESPONSES TO THE NEW ENVIRONMENTALISM . PhD thesis

https://www.thecre.com/pdf/20160522_conley_dissertation.pdf

The reference to the Reeves is this – 

Clifford B. Reeves, “Ecology Adds a New PR Dimension,” Public Relations Journal (June 1970), 7-9, which I intend to track down….

Anyway, check this out from Ali Smith’s astonishing new novel Gliff

“Their mother up at the farm had had some weedkiller spray bottles delivered, and the label came off one of the bottles and it had a note written on the inside of it saying it was from someone whose job was to screw the sprayheads on to bottles that the factory machine had mis-screwed, and it said it was from an eleven year old who was getting sick from breathing weedkiller and wanted someone to help them. Which must have been a lie, his mother’d said, because the weedkiller said on the other side of the label that it was the bio-pure kind and that there was nothing poisonous to humans in it. Which is why she’d bought it.”

(Smith, 2024:107-8)

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 for this was that capitalist interests had been trying to reassure consumers of their goodness and rightness for decades – advertising really kicked into high gear in the late nineteenth century, with periodic surges after that as new technologies (colour printing, catalogues, radio, TV) came into effect. This is all part of the ongoing war of distraction. There’s plenty of good books about this, if you’re so inclined.

It wasn’t just individual companies selling their products, either. Trade associations would band together to sell “the system” – see Captains of Consciousness, Collision Course etc.

The specific context was that by 1970 the “eco-wave” was already a year or more old – there had been intimations of trouble (Rachel Carson) but the Torrey Canyon (1967) and Santa Barbara (Jan 1969) oil spills had upped the awareness. Industry needed to fight off regulation, and look good.  Public relations was the key thing here…

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – we like to be lied too, especially if the truth would force us to be more citizen-y.

As “active citizens – “they lie, they lie, they lie.”

Academics might want to ponder… how they are more often than not just the sophisticated end of the PR industry.

What happened next: 

A massive public relations effort started, kept going. The mystification machines churn out so much, the mere quantity is enough.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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 1, 1969 – “The Future is a Cruel Hoax” Commencement address – All Our Yesterdays

June 1, 1965 – Tom Lehrer warns “don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air”

June 1, 1992 – “environmental extremists” want to shut down the United States, says President Bush

June 1, 2011 – Japanese office workers into short sleeves to save the planet

Categories
International processes

 May 31, 1994 – Climate change and Frankenstein Syndrome…

Thirty one years ago, on this day, May 31st, 1994, the chair of the International Negotiating Committee (INC) R Oyela Estrada gave a speech at the Royal Geographical Society 

“In his remarks to the Royal Geographic Society in London on May 31, 1994, INC Chairman Raul Estrada Oyela said that for the time being the Convention process was “waiting for (scientific) inputs from the IPCC but I wonder if they will come in time. Almost one year ago, explaining the needs of the Convention to the IPCC Bureau, I had the feeling that the IPCC was suffering (some) kind of ‘Dr. Frankenstein Syndrome’. After all, the idea of a Convention was nourished by the IPCC, but now the Convention starts to walk and begins to demand additional food, the IPCC answered that it had its own program of work and could not deliver products by client’s request. … We hoped, for instance that the Convention would profit from an IPCC workshop on the objectives of the Climate Convention in Fortaleza, Brazil, in April (1994). However, the workshop was postponed for October (1994), most probably for very scientifically sound motives. The point is that the INC shall meet next August and we are not going to have that input then” (Estrada-Oyela, 1994). London based New Scientist took these comments to make a news story entitled “Frankenstein Syndrome Hits Climate Treaty” marking the first public criticism of the IPCC by an INC official (The New Scientist, 1994).

Agrawala, S. 1997. Explaining the Evolution of the IPCC Structure and Process. IIASA Interim Report, September 1997 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the IPCC had been set up in 1988 and delivered its report in 1990.  The negotiations for a climate treaty began in earnest in 1991, were flummoxed by the United States. No targets or timetables for emissions reductions were included. The rest is history.

What I think we can learn from this – the science and the politics work on different timescales, with different ideas about what success is. 

What happened next  COP 1 took place a year later, and gave us the “Berlin Mandate” which gave us the Kyoto Protocol which gave us (checks notes) nothing.

And the emissions kept climbing. And the concentrations kept climbing. Rather like that pile of wreckage in that note by that Walt Benjamin chap.

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.

References

Agrawala, S. 1997. Explaining the Evolution of the IPCC Structure and Process. IIASA Interim Report, September 1997 

Agrawala, S. Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change 39, 621–642 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005312331477

Also on this day: 

May 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

May 31, 1981 – RIP Barbara Ward – All Our Yesterdays

May 31, 1995 – newly-minted MCA meets with Keating… – All Our Yesterdays

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Categories
Australia

 May 30, 1996 – Minerals Council investment pays off, again…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, May 30th, 1996,

The Federal Government’s promise of no new taxes included carbon and other so-called greenhouse taxes, the Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, told the Minerals Council of Australia in Canberra yesterday

Callick, R. (1996) Greenhouse tax off the agenda, Hill tells miners. Australian Financial Review, May 31

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the fossil fuel lobby had been fighting – half-assedly but with structural advantages and then cleverly and successfully – against any carbon pricing since the late 1980s.  They’d created something called the (Australian) Industry Greenhouse Network in the early 1990s, and it had spearheaded the fight against the Toyne/Faulkner carbon tax proposal of 1994.  But the Australian Mining Industry Council had gone Too Far on the question of Aboriginal land rights. They’d had to call in one of capitalism’s fixers – Geoff Allen – and on his advice rebrand as the Minerals Council of Australia and change their CEO. Once that was done, both Labor and Liberal meatpuppets, sorry, “politicians” were happy to bend the knee.

What I think we can learn from this. The trade associations are a good (not perfect, but good) barometer of what a sector wants and how the state responds.

What happened next. The MCA kept on winning. Which meant everyone bar the C-suite and the shareholders kept losing. And the losing accelerated.

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: 

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

May 30, 2007 – Kevin Rudd pledges to ratify Kyoto, set emissions target and create an ETS

Categories
Australia Energy

May 29, 1992- ANAO says it will look at DPIE’s energy management programme

I know, I know, hardly scintillating!

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 29th, 1992,

“On 29 May 1992, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) announced its intention to undertake an efficiency audit of DPIE’s energy management program. The audit was to consider the potential for improvement in the administration of the program and in the reporting of program performance. The auditors focussed on the administration of the interim greenhouse gas response initiatives with a view to contributing to efficiencies in the implementation of the NGRS’”

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION review of Audit Report No. 32 1992-93—an efficiency audit of the Implementation of an Interim Greenhouse Response

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

The context was various “greenhouse” responses had been proposed. Most had been killed off in the committees and left to die by the wayside. Those that had survived the hazing and salami slicing needed to be looked at for “value for money” etc.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can’t teach an elephant to tapdance.

What happened next  On this particularly? I don’t know. But have a look at Australia’s response to climate change and tell me it hasn’t been catastrophically suicidal. Go on.

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: 

May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

May 29, 2007 “Climate Clever” ad campaign in attempt to save John Howard – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

May 29, 1989- “We will all be flooded”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989 the Canberra Times pointed to sea level rise as a thing.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by mid 1989 you could not move but for documentaries, newspaper articles, magazine articles about the Greenhouse Effect, at least in Australia. This was part of that.

What I think we can learn from this is that we got all the warnings we needed.But “we” – civil society – was never able to overcome its own inertia and fears, the resistance of the state and the corporates. Not even able to really try, unless you count manifestos, marches and other meaningless maunderings in the absence of sustained, iterative, reflective praxis – and who has the mental, financial, emotional or temporal bandwidth for any of that? 

What happened next. The August 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein knocked the issue of The Environment from its perch (something had to – journalists and readers were getting bored!). It turns out we cannot easily – in the words of Donna Haraway – “stay with the trouble.” And then the denial campaigns properly kicked in and everyone settled into a generations-long game of kayfabe, of pretend. Eventually though, by the late 2010s onwards, the consequences of previous failure began to catch up with us. Mephistopheles was knocking on the door, waiting to collect…

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: 

May 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate) – All Our Yesterdays

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down