Tag: 2001

Categories
United Kingdom

 April 24, 2001 –  Early Blair blather about dodgy policies on climate

On this day, 24 years ago, a Blair minister tries to tell the actual experts that they are wrong….

“In the event, the initial auctions led to claims that reductions in emissions were not additional and an acrimonious controversy developed between the ENDS Report (which pointed this out) and the Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett. (Dieter Helm 2003) 14 Margaret Beckett letter to ENDS report contesting their point about additionality in the proposed emissions trading scheme”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Blair government was doing as little as possible about climate, still coasting on the emissions reductions from the closure of coal plants (and de-industrialisation). At this stage, climate was just another issue to be managed with the usual trickery and fakery (so much has changed in the intervening two decades!)

What we learn.  What was that Nick Tomalin said? They lie, they lie, they lie.

What happened next. In 2003, thanks to a RCEP report (RIP RCEP), the climate and energy policies began to seriously entwine, as they should have from 1988 onwards. The trickery and fakery continued obvs. I mean, what do you expect?

Also on this day

April 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?

Categories
Australia

April 19, 2001 – Greenpeace Australia does some push-polling on climate

Twenty-four years ago, on this day, April 19th 2001,

 The difficulty for the Howard government is that its position on climate change is deeply unpopular and will cost it votes at the next federal election. A survey commission by Greenpeace Australia and released on April 19 found that 80.4% of respondents believed that Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, without the US if necessary.

The Greenpeace survey drew an angry response from industry minister Nick Minchin. “I think it’s irresponsible to be pushing this line without informing people how many jobs will be lost”, he said in an April 20 media release.

“ABARE [the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics] estimates that, even with the most optimistic assumptions, the costs to Australia of meeting the Kyoto Protocol commitments would be significantly more than a severe recession and several times that of a major drought”, Minchin said.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a federal election coming. Climate change was likely to be – or Greenpeace would have liked it to be – a real issue. George W. Bush had just said America would not proceed with ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and everyone assumed that sooner or later, Prime Minister John Howard would follow suit. 

So Greenpeace thought that they could do a survey, get some press coverage for it, put little pressure on the Liberals, maybe stiffen the spine of Labour, etc. And maybe it worked at the time. 

What we learn is that these sorts of push surveys as a shot across the bows or a spine stiffener, or whatever, are a well-established political technique. What we should also learn is that they’re basically meaningless because people say all sorts of crap in a survey because they want to believe that they are the kind of person who cares. In the privacy of the ballot box people tend to vote with their ids or their wallets – and climate change doesn’t suit either of those. 

What happened next?  In August 2001 the Tampa nightmare happened. Or rather, the lies told by John Howard and his goons, almost 25 years ago now, happened. And Howard got another term in which he very predictably did everything he could to stop meaningful climate action. And then he got another term after that. And the emissions kept climbing.

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: 

April 19, 1973 – first film to mention global warming released (Soylent Green)

April 19, 1943 – the Warsaw Ghetto uprising began.

April 19, 2002 – Exxon got a top #climate scientist sacked.

April 19, 2010 -World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Kyoto Protocol Russia

April 6, 2001 – “EU takes Kyoto fight to Moscow”

On this day, 24 years ago, 

EU takes Kyoto fight to Moscow

April 6, 2001

MOSCOW, Russia — A European Union delegation has arrived in Moscow to discuss the fate of the Kyoto climate treaty.

The delegation started a international tour on Friday aimed at shoring up support for the treaty now that Washington has pulled out of the agreement.

CNN.com – EU takes Kyoto fight to Moscow – April 6, 2001

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George W Bush who had “won” the 2000 election via the Supreme Court, had immediately backtracked on a campaign-trail promise to regulate CO2 emissions.  Funny that. And by crashing the international negotiations, he forced the Europeans to try to stitch things back together again. Thus the trip to Moscow.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can’t trust Americans.

What happened next The Russians finally decided in 2004 that they’d do the deal – in exchange for World Trade Organisation membership.  Kyoto came to be, and so the whole “what do we replace Kyoto with?” caravan got moving, until the wheels fell off at Copenhagen in 2009.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

 April 6, 2006 – Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

April 6, 2006 – the anti-climate dam of John Howard begins to crack…

April 6, 2012 – Genetically-modified humans? – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes United States of America

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 28th, 2001,

2001 Bush kills US ratification of Kyoto

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that on the campaign trail, George W Bush had promised to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. People who wanted to believe that chose to believe that this was a Kyoto ratification promise. It was not. President Cheney told his underling what to say, and the underling said it. For the benefit of short term benefit of oil and gas companies, but also by now, it was entrenched as part of the bigger “culture war.”

What I think we can learn from this

that you can trust people to pursue their material and ideological interests as they understand them in the short term and to hell with the consequences. And if someone gets cold feet, they are replaceable. They’re always replaceable.

See Julian Rathbone’s superior eco thriller The Eurokillers for a fictional representation of this. 

What happened next

To absolutely no one surprised that Prime Minister John Howard pulled Australia out of Kyoto negotiations on World Environment Day the following year, 2002. But nonetheless, Kyoto was finally ratified in 2005 because the Russians wanted membership in the World Trade Organization. Meanwhile, the emissions kept climbing. 

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: 

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Categories
United States of America

 March 19, 2001 – US Secretary of Energy boasts about all the coal plants he will build (doesn’t).

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 19th, 2001,

Spencer Abraham announcing new power plants each year etc. 

“On the other side, Energy Secretary Abraham had stated in a public speech on March 19 that the United States must add ninety new power plants each year, mostly coal-fired, for the next twenty years to meet the need for a 45 percent increase in electricity demand by 2020. Vice President Cheney strongly supported efforts to increase fossil fuel supplies, including the opening of public lands, continental shelves, and the Arctic for increased coal mining and oil and gas drilling. Altogether it was unclear where the balance of opinion of the Task Force would fall. I thought it was realistic to think the scientific information we provided would aid their decision making.”

From James Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren, page 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

George Bush Junior had been handed the presidency thanks to the Supreme Court and some hanging chads in Florida, and Al Gore’s willingness to play along, (there’s that footage of the black Democrats knowing what’s coming, desperately trying to overturn it and Gore basically laughing at them…  and them good old boys drinking whiskey and rye. 

And President Cheney, being an oil man, everyone kind of knew it was coming.. 

Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, talking about hundreds of new coal plants, which puts one in mind of President Nixon’s Project Independence. 

What I think we can learn from this is that every incoming administration wants to lay out morale-boosting for their side, eye-catching, Big Number targets. Mostly it does not come to pass. 

What happened next

It did not come to pass. And then in 2011 Michael Bloomberg funded lots of local anti-coal initiatives, which meant that coal-fired power stations started to not get built/get retired. It didn’t happen by accident.

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: 

March 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Categories
Science

March 15, 2001 – “First, Direct Observational Evidence Of A Change In The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Between 1970 And 1997”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2001,

First, Direct Observational Evidence Of A Change In The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Between 1970 And 1997

Date: March 15, 2001

Source: Imperial College Of Science, Technology And Medicine

Summary:

Scientists from Imperial College, London, have produced the first direct observational evidence that the earth’s greenhouse effect increased between 1970 and 1997. Writing in the journal Nature (1), researchers in the Department of Physics show that there has been a significant change in the Earth’s greenhouse effect over the last 30 years https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010315075858.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the third IPCC report was about to be published, and everyone in the scientific world who studied this was pretty sure climate change was caused by carbon dioxide was A Thing, but it’s always nice to have the additional evidence. 

What I think we can learn from this isthat you can compile evidence upon evidence and upon evidence, and it won’t be enough to convince some people. You can prove anything with facts. 

What happened next

The third IPCC report came out. We’re toast. That’s almost 25 years ago.

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: 

March 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

March 15, 2019 – New Zealand school strike launched, called off.

Categories
Australia

 November 28, 2001 – “Stellar team for sun-powered debate” in Adelaide

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, November 28th, 2001,

FOOTBALLERS, media identities, politicians and scientists have little in common but tonight they unite for solar energy. They will be at the Adelaide Convention Centre for a public debate from 6pm on the future of solar power.

The debate features ABC science presenter Robyn Williams, former Adelaide lord mayor Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, CEO of UK solar electric power company Solar Century Dr Jeremy Leggett, Griffith University professor Ian Lowe, Advertiser youth columnist Mia Handshin, author of more than 90 publications on solar power and energy Don Osborne, and AFL player and politics student Che Cockatoo-Collins.

Freeborn, A. 2001. Stellar team for sun-power debate.Adelaide Advertiser,28 November 2001 P. 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that South Australia was back under Labor control. And therefore, it was trying to be more progressive on climate than the Liberals had been. And one thing to do was to get a bunch of celebrities together, hold hands, have a few PowerPoint. I’m being cynical because that’s who I am. But ultimately, it’s this sort of event that creates a “buzz.” 

 What happened next, South Australia kept acting on some of the green issues. Premier Mike Rann created the “Thinker in Residence” post and a couple of those people were very explicitly environment focused, for example, Stephen Schneider. South Australia has been making the running, especially penetration of renewables. So you know, you can be cynical if you want, (and I do) but sometimes something comes from the celebrities and the PowerPoints. They’re necessary, perhaps, but not sufficient. But maybe they’re not necessary. Maybe there’s correlation, not causation.

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: 

November 28, 1976 – climate modelling workshop in USA

November 28, 2008 – somebody shuts down a coal plant, solo

Categories
Australia

November 6, 2001 – Howard plays the jobs-card vs Kyoto in Hunter Valley

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, November 6th, 2001 days before the election,

CANBERRA, Nov 6 AAP – The government today chose an industrial heartland to warn that Labor’s promise to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change would cost jobs and harm the economy.

Prime Minister John Howard toured the industry-rich Hunter Valley area north of Sydney to sell his message that ratifying the agreement would cost jobs, pump up petrol and power prices and hurt industry.

The comments came on the eve of a high-level meeting in Morocco tomorrow night when officials from around the globe will debate the finer points of ratifying the protocol…. 

Modelling quoted widely by the coalition was based on inaccurate assumptions that unrealistically inflated the costs of meeting Australia’s targets, opposition environment spokesman Nick Bolkus said.

2001 McSweeny, L., Polglaze, K. and Hamilton, F. 2001. Fed – Govt warns of job losses under ALP Kyoto plan. Australian Associated Press, 7 November.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard was using the old line about jobs to defend his mates in the fossil fuel sector, even though as a whole mining did not provide that many jobs primarily or secondarily, especially when it comes to open cast. 

What we learn is that it’s all Jobsngrowth, Jobsngrowth. The reliable standbys when talking to the electorate, just as technology is the standby when talking to society more generally. 

What happened next, Howard had another six years of mayhem and the Hunter is still coal central despite what it’s doing to all the other sectors, whether it’s tourism or agriculture, or what, or horse-racing.

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: 

November 6, 1988 – Australian cartoonist nails response to #climate change

November 6, 1989 – Noordwijk conference – “alright, we will keep talking”

November 6, 1990 – Second World Climate Conference underway

November 6, 2009 – Kevin Rudd playing politics with the climate

Categories
Australia

October 20, 2001 – Greenpeace nails Howard government over Kyoto and general climate assholery

Twenty three years ago, on this day, October 20th, 2001, four years to the day after they’d tried to give him solar panels, Greenpeace nailed John Howard.

Greenpeace noted in an October 20 [2001] media release, “In its ongoing attempt to avoid an agreement that has any legal consequences, Australia has tried to weaken the whole Protocol by substituting the word ‘should’ for the world ‘shall’ throughout the compliance agreement, weakening its legal power. [Compare Paris panic in 2015] Australia also wants to be able [to] play with its figures on forestry and land use, and is trying to get the rules written so it doesn’t even have to say exactly where the forests are.”

Jennifer Morgan from the World Wildlife Fund described Australia as the “leader of the backtrack camp”. The Climate Action Network awarded Australia a “Fossil of the Day” award for trying to gut the compliance regime.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-kyoto-protocol-rescued-again

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that here we were, a month after 911 and a month before the next Federal Election. John Howard was still being a prick on climate. Of course he was. He was breathing. He had defeated an emissions trading scheme. He had slowed down renewable energy as much as he could. And he’d already kind of promised that he wasn’t going to ratify Kyoto, (though he didn’t make that announcement until June of the following year.)

What we learn is that Greenpeace has been telling the truth to Howard and all of these politicians but you shall know the truth and the truth really shall not set you free. Anyone who tells you that the truth will set you free is either a god-bother, a helpless liberal or hasn’t been paying any attention.

What happened next? Howard won another two elections (2001 and 2004), caused more mayhem and despondency. And the emissions kept climbing. And the coal exports. And the LNG. And the profits accruing to a few companies. And here we are.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

October 20, 1977 – Australian petition on solar energy and carbon dioxide build-up…

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

October 20, 1997 – Greenpeace tries to give John Howard solar panels…

Categories
Germany UNFCCC United Nations

July 27, 2001 – COP6-bis ends – the show is back on the road

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 27th, 2001, the international climate caravan is pulled out of its rut, and shambles on.

COP 6 negotiations resumed July 17–27, 2001, in Bonn, Germany, with little progress having been made in resolving the differences that had produced an impasse in The Hague. 

“Despite the withdrawal of the US just months earlier, parties convened again for a continuation of COP6 (‘COP-6 bis’) in Bonn in July 2001. To the surprise of many observers, agreement was reached on most outstanding political issues and the conference resulted in the adoption of the Bonn Agreements on the Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. Work remained outstanding on a number of operational details which were referred to COP-7 for further negotiation”  (source)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that COP6 in The Hague, in late 2000 had ended in disarray. This was the “stitching back together and trying to keep the show on the road” response, especially difficult now that Bush had said the US was withdrawing from the negotiations towards the Kyoto Protocol.

What we learn is that COP is a leaky boat that keeps needing plugs and fixes as it goes along, ever lower in the water…. And this was one of those times. 

What happened next? The COP circus carried on and carried on and carried on. And here we are over 20 years later, still failing.

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: 

July 27, 1977 – Pro-nuclear professor cites #climate concerns at Adelaide speech

July 27, 1979 – Thatcher’s Cabinet ponders burying climate report

July 27, 2001 – Minerals Council of Australia versus the Kyoto Protocol