Categories
Academia Activism Social Movements

Maps, cars, metaphors and – most of all – the responsibility of intellectuals

I’m writing this because I may be wrong.

Of course, that doesn’t narrow down the things I could write about (I mean, everything, other than that I exist: merci, Rene!).

Specifically, then. A couple of days ago one of those ‘things could be much much better than they are’ reports got released. And the Guardian, bless its centrist socks, ran an op-ed by the authors.

I did a keyword search for ‘movements’ on the latter, which came up blank.  So then I wrote a two-part thread on BSky.

It ran thus-

Another day, another worthless (worse than useless?) ‘The cat should wear a bell’report about how everything can be wonderful.  

No mention of social movements.  

Apparently the state and corporates will do all this wonderful stuff un-bidden.  Because some academics wrote a report.

1/2

And part two

I can’t take this shit seriously, and I would encourage other people to do likewise.

I search “hey, we can save the world, here’s how” articles for the word ‘movements’. No mentions gets a hard pass from me.

Saves time/bandwidth.

To read or not to read – Ctrl F movements, Ctrl F global justice…

2/2

By my pitiful engagement standards it did well.

The first post got 5 reposts, on quote post, 16 likes and a save.

The second one got some comments, a repost and 4 likes.

It is to these comments that I now turn.

One person on Bluesky typed

How to make it happen is the next step not a replacement step.

There were several things I could have said. I chose to keep it relatively neutral –

In my experience these reports never have an “implementation” sequel. Happy to be proven wrong…

To which came

*We* need to be the implementation sequel.

A map isn’t worthless just because it comes without a car.

To which I replied

A map tells you the terrain. A castle in the air doesn’t. 

I suspect we agree on a lot, and could/can fruitfully disagree.

This platform isn’t the format, imo. So I will write A (sic) post and you can respond if you like.

Which brings you up to speed, if you’re still here.

Life is short and there are moorhens to say hello to (it’s been far too long), so I will frame this around a series of questions. (These may be leading questions, they may not be the right questions, and I am happy to be told they are not, and to be told what ARE the right questions.)

Did the report (which you can read here) have anything new about new strategies for a world where hope is dying, where our situational awareness is being destroyed not merely by accelerating corporate propaganda and government secrecy but also AI slop?

Nope. I am sorry, but having only one reference to social movements, and quite a glib one in the introduction, is just not on.

(“civil society” appears not at all. Apparently this is all going to be done by technocrats in bureaucracies. Yeah. Sure.)

Are vague invocations of “we” “being the implementation” helpful?

No. If anything, that sort of statement is more likely to have us staying within our smugospheres, doing things that make us feel good/give us status (or continue to deprive us of status perhaps?) and are easy because we’ve been doing them for ages, independently of their actual or likely success.

Why might someone push back against my performative world-weariness?

Nobody likes some smug performative world-weary asshole who pisses on everybody’s chips and apparently has no solutions of his own. (Actually, I have plenty, at a microlevel, which is what is required to make the meso and macro happen. But I totally understand how somebody might assume I don’t, either because they don’t know my stuff, aren’t interested in finding out or wouldn’t find it convenient to find out because then I would be less easily chided/dismissed). 

I keep meaning to put all this shit together in one place, but never do. Anyhoos, one the social movements, incentive structures and our inevitable doom, see here. 

Is this report much of a map of the existing terrain?

No.

You haven’t read the whole thing, how can you be sure?

I brown M&Med it.

Eh?

The Van Halen test. I asked some specific questions via my old friend Ctrl F.

Will you find any of these words? (Spoiler: no, so, not much of a map, imo)

  • Advertising
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Buen vivir
  • Permaculture
  • Positional goods
  • Predatory delay
  • Propaganda
  • Repression
  • Veganism
  • Vegetarianism

Only two mentions of capitalism, and one of those is a reference.

“More generally, the development of Western industrial capitalism since the 18th century is closely linked to a system based on the international division of labour, the mobilization of natural and human resources at the world level, and the European powers’ military and colonial domination over the rest of the planet.” (p.115)

and

Nogues-Marco, P. (2021). “Measuring colonial extraction: The East India Company’s rule and the drain of wealth (1757–1858)”. In: Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics 2.1, pp. 154–195.

Does this report, coming in at 136 pages, have anything other than another international body that will be instantly captured/de-fanged to suggest?

No. I don’t think it does (but I have yet to read all 136 pages)

Do these authors give any indication at all of knowing what a car is?

Not to me they don’t.

Are our metaphors all outa whack?

Why yes, yes they are.

What, ultimately, is the responsibility of intellectuals?

“There’s a huge cultural, intellectual, political battle that is going on. And we all have a role to play,” said Thomas Piketty, a co-director of the WIL and a professor at the Paris School of Economics. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/04/world-inequality-lab-equality-academics-planetary-survival

Well, sure. But for me, you can’t go past Noam Chomsky – it is the responsibility of intellectuals to expose lies and tell the truth.


And the truth I keep coming back to is that ”we” (note the quote marks) are losing, and have been losing quite badly since the 70s (not that before then was exactly great). 

And if intellectuals are going to spend the bulk off their time building these probably necessary “visions” but NOT offer a fair assessment of how “we” have been failing on these questions for well over fifty years, then I do not think they are either exposing lies (sweet little lies we have been telling ourselves) or telling the truth.

James Baldwin said it best – “not everything that can be faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

The report doesn’t help us face our failures since (before) the 1972 Stockholm conference, at a state, corporate, civil society or social movements level. 

This is by technocrats, for technocrats, and will sink without trace. Meanwhile, the emissions will climb, the impacts will hit ever harder.


We are near the beginning of the Fafocene. Buckle up, mofos.  

That report, btw – 

Chancel, L., Mohren, C., Moshrif, R., Odersky, M., Piketty, T., Somanchi, A., et al. (2026), The Global Justice Report: A Plan for Equality & Prosperity Within Planetary Boundaries, World Inequality Lab (gjp.wid.world).

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

June 7, 2006 – TUC fanboys CCS

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 7th,  2006, the Trades Union Council was fanboying ‘carbon capture and storage’ because it would help create ‘Clean Coal Britain’.

www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/framework-clean-coal-britain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm.  As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 carbon capture and storage had been dreamt up as a potential techno fix solution for carbon dioxide build up in the mid 70s by an Italian physicist called Cesar Marchetti, and a certain amount of speculative work had been done in the late 70s and again in the early 90s, but the costs were prohibitive, and the technological challenges, shall we say, significant. The specific context is that after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol and finally its ratification, it became clear that technological fixes were going to be the favoured rhetorical device, if not literal device, of political and economic elites. And so you’d had things like the carbon sequestration Leadership Forum, which was just another international talking shop with a logo and press conferences. Meanwhile, in the UK, support for CCS was coalescing. 

The specific context was that the Trades Union Council and especially the miners unions and friends of miners desperately trying to interest politicians. This is under Blair, still in the mindset that carbon capture and storage can ensure that domestic coal mining can continue, and the burning of coal for electricity can continue. 

What I think we can learn is this:  there are all sorts of constituencies for a technology, and that technologies bat about for a long time before they become quote plausible, unquote or implausible, but still implemented. 

What happened next: Well, the lobbying effort worked in that in late 2007 the first CCS competition was announced by Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, at an event in London, hosted by the WWF. That competition fell apart. Another competition was launched with confidence that lessons had been learned, and then at the last minute, in 2015 Treasurer George Osborne pulled the plug ; not because he was an opponent of CCS, he just didn’t think it was important, and he wanted to be able to boast about having put more bobbies on the beat. It was that banal. And then a third competition was launched in 2018 or ‘19 or whenever. And you can read all about it in my first and last book.

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

References

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 7, 1959 – another letter about carbon dioxide build up in the Times of India

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

June 7, 1984 – UK diplomat pushes for more environmental action

June 7, 1989 – Money to be made from the Greenhouse, says the Fin

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

Categories
Australia

June 6, 1990 – ACF, BCA and ACTU hold hands

On this day, June 6th, greenies, business and trades unions hold hands…

“Weather forecast for the world of our children”. 

Address to the joint Australian Conservation Foundation/ Business Council of Australia/ Australian Council of Trade Unions forum on sustainable development in Melbourne on 6 June 1990

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm.  As of 2026, 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 there had been periodic flashes of warning about carbon dioxide build up through the 70s and early 80s, but the issue had really exploded in 1988 especially in Australia, (related to ozone depletion and so forth). And what you saw was a whole bunch of organisations scrambling to catch up.  

The specific context was that here you see we’re still in the “hold hands and sing Kumbaya and have a collective response” phase, while the Business Council of Australia, was beginning to flex its muscles on counting the perceived costs it hadn’t yet publicly broken bad. Meanwhile, the ACTU had released a couple of nice sounding reports and. But the ACTU problem was that they allowed the CFMEU (not called that yet) to dominate the Union response. So, the mining union, in bed with the owners of the mines, decided that coal exports and coal mining were more important than well anything else 

Meanwhile, the Australian Conservation Foundation was having a good time of it, with loads of Members, loads of money, loads of publicity, looking sexy.  That went well.

What I think we can learn is this:  there is always, there’s often a brief period within a policy window, or part of the issue attention cycle, when organisations who were enemies and will be enemies again, stand on a stage and say the nice stuff. And at the moment, maybe they even believe that nice stuff (or they hope it will become true anyway). 

What happened next:  The BCA started pushing harder and harder against any climate responses. The ACTU continued to allow the coal miners union to dominate its response.  The ACF went along with the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process, all the while knowing that it would probably end in tears. And yes, indeed, it did, in fact, end in tears. 

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

References

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 6, 1977 – German scientist Hermann Flohn asks “Whither the Atmosphere and the Earth’s climate?” – All Our Yesterdays

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

June 6, 1988 – Scientists say we are entering a new phase

Categories
Science United States of America

June 6, 1957 – CO2 build up studied by Charles David Keeling

On this day, June 6th, 1957, Charles Keeling submits a paper.

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Volume 13, Issue 4, 1958, Pages 322-334 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 

The concentration and isotopic abundances of atmospheric carbon dioxide in rural areas 

Charles D Keeling ∗ Division of Geological Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California U.S.A. Received 6 June 1957,   https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(58)90033-4 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm.  As of 2026, 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 after World War Two, it became possible to study the world with more precision and broader scope, thanks to radar, sonar, jet engines etc.

The specific context was that in 1950 the idea of an International Geophysical Year was proposed. And also by the mid 50s, people like Gilbert place, Charles Keeling, Roger Revelle and the Swedes, Ericsson and Rossby and so forth, were talking about carbon dioxide build up as a possible influence on the atmosphere, and this submission of this paper is part of that context. 

What I think we can learn is this: by the mid-late 50s, it was obvious that CO2 was indeed building up and that some people could foresee that there might be serious trouble ahead. 

What happened next: 

Four months after this, Sputnik was launched…

Roger Revelle was able to shake the money tree and get funding for measurement of carbon dioxide build-up, with stations in Hawaii and Antarctica (it was not necessarily expected that global levels would be increasing).

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

May 20, 1960 – Spengler suggests decline of the … whole shebang – All Our Yesterdays 

References

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 6, 1977 – German scientist Hermann Flohn asks “Whither the Atmosphere and the Earth’s climate?” – All Our Yesterdays

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

June 6, 1988 – Scientists say we are entering a new phase

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

June 5, 2006 – Rising Tide boat blockade

Nineteen years ago, on this day, June 5th, 2006, 70 brave people put their bodies on the line…

June 5, 2006, and Nov. 3, 2007: Rising Tide boat blockades of Newcastle port

On June 5, 2006, in a Rising Tide Australia action, 70 people used small boats to blockade the port of Newcastle, Australia, which exports 80 million tons of coal each year. The protest aimed to call attention to a planned expansion that would allow the port to export twice that amount.[1] The action was repeated by 100 people on Nov. 3, 2007: at this second action, participants attempted to block ships from entering the port for four hours, but police boats managed to escort three ships into the port. At one point, a police jetski rammed one woman’s kayak, resulting in her hospitalization.[2][3]

Citizen action and protests against coal in Australia – Global Energy Monitor

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that all the petitions, marches and begging of politicians had not worked. Emissions climbed, fossil intensive infrastructure projects kept getting approved (and still get approved).

The specific context was that the Howard government (like the Keating and Hawke governments before it) had mouthed occasional platitudes about “the environment” but were hell-bent on saying yes to whatever fossil extraction and export was proposed. 

What I think we can learn from this is that brave people have had the foresight and clarity – it hasn’t been enough. What was needed was broad-based movements. Oh well…

What happened next was that the exports and burning went on, the emissions and concentrations went up and up. The mainstream politicians have mostly given up pretending to give a shit.

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 5, 1963  – JFK says yes to SST – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 1967 –  Working Group on Atmospheric Pollution and Atmospheric Chemistry – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 1994 – that referendum idea is back again… – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 2000 – Liberals pushback against Kyoto, a UN conspiracy… – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 2001 – NSW Premier Bob Carr promises a climate advertising blitz – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 2006 – IPA sets up astroturf outfit – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia UNFCCC

June 4,  1992 – Australia signs the UNFCCC

On this day June 4,  1992

Australian signs the UNFCCC R Kelly (Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories), Australia signs UNCED climate change convention, 

media release, 4 June 1992.

and

The opposition’s delegate to UNCED in 1992, for example, had criticized the Labor Government’s willingness to give away Australia’s sovereign rights and had emphasized the debilitative economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.48 CPD, Senate, 4 June 1992, p. 3350.

Matt McDonald, 2005 Fair Weather Friend

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm.  As of 2026, 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 Australian political elites had been warned about climate change from the 1970s onwards, but it had only taken action when forced to and initially, for example, at The Hague in 1989 had made the right noises.

The specific context was that by the time Ros Kelly went to Rio, there had been fierce battles against doing anything substantive on climate change, and most of those battles, frankly, had already been won before December 1991, when Keating toppled Hawke. But the coup de grace was Paul Keating becoming Prime Minister and setting fire to any remaining proposals or hopes that Australia would respond adequately as part of the international effort.  Keating just thought it was a load of green crap.

Keating should have been at Rio; e was the only OECD leader not to go, and he sent Kelly instead. 

What I think we can learn is this:  that other futures were possible, but they didn’t happen, and Paul Keating is as responsible for, frankly, the destruction of Australia, thanks to carbon dioxide build up as the more public villain, John Howard.   

What happened next: Kelly continued in post for a couple more years, but was brought down by the so-called sports rorts scandal. She was married to, perhaps is married to, some guy who was at the head of Westpac and Westpac did that ridiculous case for early business action on climate change in April of 2006 the emissions climbed. The concentrations climbed, the impacts began to arrive. 

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

September 4, 1990 – Industry whines about environment minister’s speech

October 13, 1990/97 – Ros Kelly defends the Interim Planning Target vs Australia does nothing

January 28, 1992 – Ros Kelly versus Industry commission on greenhouse plans

April 26, 1992 – Ros Kelly abjures a carbon tax

References

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 4, 1979 – Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind – All Our Yesterdays

June 4, 1984 – John Houghton of the Met Office wants research – All Our Yesterdays

June 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

 June 4, 2001 – Australians ‘get’ climate change (??) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Japan Kyoto Protocol

June 3,  2002 – Japan ratifies Kyoto Protocol

On this day June 3, 2002

Japan ratifies Kyoto – followed in 2013 by a slashing of ambition.

http://treealerts.org/type/alerts/2013/11/international-frustration-as-japanese-slash-climate-ambition/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm.  As of 2026, 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 Japan had suggested something called “pledge and review” in mid-1991 as a way of breaking the logjam around American intransigence on a climate treaty, and then Japan must have stuck its hand up at some point in 95 to say, “hey, we will host the third COP,” knowing that the third COP would be the consequential one where the Berlin mandate was supposed to reach its apotheosis. So the Japanese had been heavily involved, as you’d expect a middle power to be. I don’t know why it took the Japanese Diet five years from the end or four and a half years from the end of December 97 through to June of 2002 to ratify. So I will look that up. It’s a little bit interesting, because you’d assume they’d want to force the pace, but there will have been, of course, fierce fights within the Japanese government, within Japanese elites over the costs of doing this. 

Remember, the Japanese economy was already quite energy efficient thanks to the aftermath of the first Oil Shock,, and therefore there wasn’t lots of “low hanging fruit” and therefore actual emission reductions were going to be perhaps a bit more expensive. There was also the question of, did you try and do more nuclear? Was there much scope for renewables, etc, etc. 

The specific context was that by this point, the Americans under Dick Cheney and his mascot, George W Bush, had very publicly pulled out of Kyoto. They had done that in March of 2001, and the Japanese must have known that Australia was not going to ratify. So maybe they held off in order to try and re inject some momentum. I don’t know that is speculation…

What I think we can learn is this: Your ignorance is the volume of a sphere, your knowledge the surface area.

What happened next: The Kyoto Protocol languished for a couple of years, but then, because the Russians wanted membership of the World Trade Organisation, the Europeans were able to persuade them to ratify Kyoto, which had no real costs for Russia. And so in early 2005 the Kyoto Protocol became international law, which meant that there would be a negotiation process for a sequel to Kyoto, which meant the Americans and the Australians especially had a problem.

Climate Policy

Volume 1, Issue 3, September 2001, Pages 343-362

Japanese ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Hiroshi Matsumura

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-3062(01)00023-7Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper discusses Japan’s quantitative Kyoto target in the context of the country’s socio-economic and political background and its desire to express international leadership. Japan’s initial negotiating target was developed as a compromise between domestic industrial considerations and its international ambitions, and was strengthened further under the pressures to achieve success at Kyoto.

The original projections relied heavily upon nuclear expansion that will not be realized. Though economic stagnation has helped emissions to decline from their mid-1990s peak, it has also reduced the attention devoted to climate change and the willingness to bear costs, and Japan’s commitment remains daunting. Japanese bureaucrats and diplomats are called to work closer together and in an integrated manner in order to develop a new, more realistic policy package for achieving their target. This report analyses various scenarios for additional policies for Japan, including fuel switching, carbon taxation and emissions trading, and concludes that the introduction of gas in the context of energy market liberalization is a key possibility. It also considers the sink and the nuclear energy issues both of high importance for the country.

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

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

References

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, 1996 – Business Council of Australia versus even the idea of a carbon tax – All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Categories
Australia

June 2, 2012 – RIP Deni Greene

On this day June 2nd, 2012 Deni Greene died.

Greene had done some of the early economic modelling (1990) about how Australia could cut emissions and better off. The work was ignored, and then swamped by corporate bullshit…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm.  As of 2026, 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  Deni Greene had come to Australia at some point in the 70s or 80s as an economist and in the battles over the economic responses to the greenhouse effect, as it was then called, in 1989-91 did a lot of economic modelling, especially around energy efficiency, to show that it would be possible and in fact beneficial, to take strong action. The pro-coal ministries were not impressed, partly, I think, because of the argument, probably also because she was, in fact, only a woman. 

And by 91 PricewaterhouseCoopers had been commissioned to release or to produce a whole bunch of other reports, and the modelling wars were underway. 

What I think we can learn is this: it’s now almost 40 years of failure on climate change, and we seem to have learned nothing, and we seem to be incapable of learning anything, if at the micro, meso or macro level. But pretty soon, we will be learning – and the lesson today is how to die.  

What happened next:  I don’t know what Greene did with the rest of her life, after the early 90s, but it must have been pretty painful to watch all the shit unfold, but that is what happens to people, isn’t it,

Vale Deni Greene – consumer representative

The Bob Brown Foundation has set up the ‘Deni Greene’ awards, btw.

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

March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

October 4, 1990 – “Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder”

References

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).

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, 1977 – Australian scientists SCOPE the climate problem – All Our Yesterdays

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

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

Categories
Australia

June 1, 2008 – Shadow environment minister jumps from plane.

Eighteen years ago on this day June 1,  a real stunt filled the airwaves.

Shadow minister throws himself out of a plane

https://www.greghunt.com.au/PDF/flinderscommunity2008/GHSpring2008Community.pdf

And 

By Glen Atwell

FLINDERS MP Greg Hunt joined Australia’s oldest parachutist, Jim Brierley, in a parachute jump over Tooradin at the weekend to highlight the freefall of Australia’s solar industry.

83-year-old Mr Brierley lives at Phillip Island in the Flinders electorate and wrote to Mr Hunt earlier this year, inviting him to skydive with the Tooradin-based Commando Skydivers.

Mr Hunt accepted the invitation immediately.

“I leapt at the chance. I had done a static-line parachute jump – where the parachute opens automatically – when I was about 17 but had always wanted to experience a skydive,” he said.

Mr Hunt, who made the jump with tandem master Dave Boulter, described the experience as “sheer exhilaration”.

“We were lucky in that the day was pretty overcast but we managed to find a break in the clouds that lasted just long enough for me to make the jump.

“We jumped from 7000 feet, which was above the cloud level, and dived through the clouds for about 20 seconds before we activated the parachute. Twenty seconds doesn’t sound like a long time but it’s an eternity when you are hurtling towards the ground at something like 120 miles an hour. It is sheer exhilaration. I loved every second of it.

“Jim jumped out of the plane just before me and made an effortless landing, He is an amazing gentleman and an inspiration to us all.”

Mr Hunt used the jump to highlight the plight of the solar panel industry which he said has been sent into freefall since the Rudd Government imposed a means test on the popular solar panel rebate scheme.

BERNARD KEANE ON “PERPETUAL PRESENT” AND PETER GARRETT

Oddly, this is the Greg Hunt who throughout 2008 opportunistically joined the Greens in bagging Garrett for not rolling the solar panels program out quickly enough, after Garrett introduced a means test on the solar panel rebate to slow the remarkable demand for the program.  In June 2008, Hunt went skydiving — anyone remember that? — to demonstrate that the solar industry was in “freefall — but unlike me it doesn’t have a soft landing ahead of it”.

Peter Garrett and the perpetual present of politics

Also Hunt on the Great Barrier Reef…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm.  As of 2026, 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 Australian political elites had been aware of the carbon dioxide problem since the 1970s but had not really done anything until forced to by a combination of scientific lobbying and especially public pressure, which exploded in 1988. And in 1990 a student, I think, at University of Melbourne, did his honours thesis on carbon pricing, and 18 years later, that student was the shadow Environment Minister Greg Hunt,

The specific context was that there had been fierce battles over Emissions Trading/ putting a price on carbon dioxide. And from the end of 2006 onwards, there had been running open battles. By mid 2008 the conservative Party, the Liberal party’s fragile consensus on the need to respond to carbon dioxide build up was beginning to fracture. They were still under the leadership, such as it was of Brendan Nelson, but Malcolm Turnbull was waiting in the wings as leader of the opposition.

What I think we can learn is this:  these stupid stunts, they are not cupid stunts, but something else we learned that politicians will do pretty much anything for a headline. 

What happened next:  

A month later, the retreat began…

Malcolm Turnbull became leader of the opposition and tried to forge some sort of deal with Kevin Rudd, the Labor Prime Minister. But Rudd was too much enjoying watching Turnbull twist in the wind, and so carbon pricing did not get passed, and Tony Abbott became leader of the opposition, and then, God help us, Prime Minister. And was a complete failure, but he can point to having abolished the carbon price as his signal achievement. Hunt was Minister for the Environment in this and brought about a shadow Emissions Trading Scheme. (See Leonore Taylor in the Guardian for more on this).

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

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

August 27, 2013 – absurd claim of Nobel-prize winners’ support for Liberal non-policy is debunked.

References

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

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

June 1, 1970 – Public Relations versus Democracy and Ecology – All Our Yesterdays

June 1, 1989 – Tony Blair versus carbon pricing – All Our Yesterdays

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
Australia

May 31, 2007 – Shergold Report released 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 31st, 2007 the Australian ‘Shergold Report’ was released:

The Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading releases the ‘Shergold Report’ which recommends Australia develop an emissions trading scheme.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian political elites had been warned repeatedly about climate change from the late 1970s onwards. The Howard government from 1996 had chosen to resist any and all domestic and international action on climate that would either inconvenience rich people and fossil fuel companies or even potentially lead to their inconvenience at some point in the future. So, for example, Howard resisted all calls to ratify the Kyoto Protocol even though it would mean nothing substantive, because the next deal might and once you’ve given in on one thing, you have to give in on the next, or it’s easier for you to be forced not to give.

The specific context was that in September, October of 2006 public awareness of concern about climate change spiked because of the Millennium drought, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, (he visited Australia) and a bunch of other factors. Howard’s resistance to climate change action or even the investigation of it became untenable, and so Howard did what any politician will do. He appointed a band, a panel led by a reliable civil servant, Peter Shergold. The panel was, of course, stacked with the usual suspects, fossil fuel hacks and CEOs and so forth, and didn’t have scientists or civil society people who would ask awkward questions. And Howard’s plan, I think, was for the Shergold report to be a fig leaf behind which he could hide ahead of the upcoming Federal election. He wanted to be able to use to wave the Shergold report around to show that he was willing to do something on climate change, or to countenance doing something on climate change, and so neutralise one of the rhetorical weapons that the Labour opposition leader Kevin Rudd had in his armoury, 

What I think we can learn from this. that you can’t really understand the provenance and purpose of so-called “fact-finding” reports without understanding the politics and the motivations behind it. 

What happened next. The Shergold report did not function as Howard hoped it would, and Howard was on a hiding to nothing, because people wanted actual action on climate change, and they thought that Kevin Rudd would deliver, or they hoped he would – poor deluded fools. See also. Chris Rootes, “first climate election” published in the journal Environmental Politics…

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 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, 1994 – Climate change and Frankenstein Syndrome…

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