Tag: 2001

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

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

July 25, 2001 – Australian Environment Minister says the quiet part out loud about Kyoto

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2001, the truth is told about Australia’s climate change targets.,

2001 – Then-environment minister Robert Hill admitted on July 25, immediately after the Kyoto Protocol had been further weakened at the UN conference in Germany, that “it could well be possible to achieve our target with the measures we now have in place”.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/bush-threatens-worlds-climate

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 the UNFCCC process was in deep shit. It has ended in acrimony without any closing statement or anything. In November/December, the previous year in The Hague(which is where the climate criminals belong, but, that’s another blog post).

 Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. And so, here, in Bonn, they were stitching the pieces back together again. And the Australian environment minister, Robert Hill, said the quiet part out loud when he admitted that Australia had basically carved out such an insanely generous deal in December 1997, that it was going to hit its targets without doing much of anything.

What we learn – if you listen closely, you can figure out what’s going on. It’s not rocket science.

What happened next? 

In June of 2002, finally, to nobody’s surprise, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said no to Kyoto, I think simply because he enjoyed “owning the libs.” There was no upside in it for him really. And it would mean that Australia was beholden to future stuff, and he could much more easily stay pals with George W. Bush. I guess ratifying Kyoto would have annoyed Bush since it would have isolated the US even further. So they didn’t do it. Kyoto was only finally ratified by Australia in December 2007 by Kevin Rudd.

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 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia

July 24, 2001 – Running from the Storm? Nah, we’re slouching towards it

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 24th, 2001 the first book about Australia’s climate policy is published.

Broadcast: 24/7/2001 A small step for climate change

Tony Jones speaks with Cathy Zoi, a former environmental adviser to president Bill Clinton and Dr Clive Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute, a public policy research body, and author of a new book on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions called Running from the Storm. 

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 Clive Hamilton had returned from Indonesia in 1993 or 1994. He’d set up The Australia Institute. And one of the topics of conversation was writing about climate policy. And he had written the first book about climate policy and Australia. There had been articles, there had been chapters in edited volumes – but this was the first book “Running from the Storm.” 

What we learn is that back in the 90s nobody was really paying a lot of attention to climate. It was one of many issues that hadn’t fully emerged for environmentalists aside from a few.

What happened next, Hamilton kept fighting the good fight, naming the tactics and the names. He basically cannibalised that book. And it formed the first few chapters of Scorcher six years later. Both of them are well worth your time.

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 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

Categories
Australia

April 3, 1995 and 2001 – Australia’s international trajectory – from bullshit to batshit delusion (but honest)

Twenty nine and twenty three years ago, on this day, April 3rd, 1995 and 2001, the Australian position on international negotiations went from mildly hypocritical to unashamedly evil.

Australian environment minister John Faulkner meets with German Environment Minister Angela Merkel at COP1 and says “Australia is not obstructionist”

McCathie, 1995, 5 April. Australia’s change of heart hits the spot.

AND THEN 

The Australian government is being applauded by corporate polluters and corporate front groups at home and abroad. The Global Climate Coalition, the major front group for US corporate polluters, features on its web site an article by Alan Wood in the April 3 Australian (<http://www.globalclimate.org>). Wood’s article, titled “Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests”, urges Australia to back the US in pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.

Wood comments favourably on a paper written by climate sceptic Alan Oxley for the Lavoisier Group, an Australian “think tank” which argues that the Kyoto Protocol poses “the most serious challenge to our sovereignty since the Japanese fleet entered the Coral Sea on 3 May, 1942”.

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

and

The US has called Europe’s bluff.

LISTEN to the Europeans and you could be forgiven for thinking George W. Bush has just sent the world to the gas chamber – the greenhouse gas chamber, that is. What Bush has really done by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol is shatter a European dream of running the international energy market, or at least a substantial bit of it.

This dream arose from a mix of Europe’s quasi-religious green fundamentalism and cynical calculation of commercial advantage. Jacques Chirac gave the game away at the failed COP6 talks at The Hague last November, when he described the protocol as “a genuine instrument of global governance”.

Wood, A. 2001. Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests. The Australian, 3 April, p13.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361 to 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this six year period is really where the “failing to deal with climate change” accelerates. Before April 1995 two serious battles had already been lost. The Ecologically Sustainable Development process, which came up with some workable if not transformative in-and-of-themselves ideas, had been watered down and then killed off by Keating and federal bureaucrats. 

A second bite at the “carbon tax” cherry had just been defeated by early February 1995. John Faulkner had had to run up the white flag. The COP1 meeting was underway when this first bullshit was being spouted. 

But then if you look at the next six years, it’s an astonishing period of abject policy failure on climate, if, of course, by failure you mean protecting current and future generations. If your metric is “keeping rich people rich and the fossil fuel interests happy” that it was a stunning success. You have Australia’s adoption of ABARE modelling for international purposes by late 1995 under Keating.

You have the hostility to international negotiations breaking out in public in Geneva in July 1996. 

You have the year long campaign in 1997 for Australia to have some sort of special exemption, which sadly was successful.

You have the play acting of the Australian Greenhouse Office.

You have the defeat of the first Emissions Trading Scheme in 2000.

You have the introduction of an incredibly watered down Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. 

And you have the protection of state sanctioned credibility for a fantasy technology known as “carbon capture and storage.” 

By here we are on  April 3 2001, just after Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. That Bush decision meant that Australia was going to do the same, as per the leak in 1998. The batshit denialists could have just rested on their laurels. But theirs is a fire that continues to burn, regardless of whether they’re winning big or winning medium; and they were winning big. 

What we learn – the failure was public. There were no secrets, really.

What happened next. The failure has continued. And unless people behave differently, will continue to do so.

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 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Uncategorized

October 26, 2001 – BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage mooted

Twenty two years ago, on this day, October 26, 2001, BECCS put in an early appearance, in a letter to the American publication Science.

“We provided this information in an IIASA interim report, which never received much attention, but laid a foundation for the forthcoming Science letter. However, in retrospect, these early scenarios were the cradle of the types of scenarios we now see underpinning the Paris Climate Agreement. With these scenarios at hand, we had more confidence and submitted our letter to Science, which was published on October 26th, 2001.” https://climatestrategies.org/twenty-years-of-beccs-a-short-retrospection/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The IPCC was putting together a special report on CCS. There was a workshop within it including the stuff about bio energy, carbon capture and storage, which is where you would basically plant trees, burn them and capture, or dump the trees in the deep ocean. In essence.

What I think we can learn from this

BECCS had a long history longer than I thought, and crucially, IIASA is a midwife again. And so these technologies have long histories. It takes a long time to get anything off the ground. And if you do want to get it off the ground or in this case under the ground you could do worse than IIASA.

What happened next

By 2013-14 BECCS was becoming part of the narrative. It has stayed there. There are all sorts of fantasies we will tell ourselves and each other, soothing stories of salvation

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.

Categories
United States of America

May 7, 2001 – The American way of life is non-negotiable. Again.

Twenty two years ago, on this day, May 7, 2001, George “W” Bush’s spokesman was telling the truth.

 “The President believes that it’s an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy-makers to protect [it]. The American way of life is a blessed one . . . The President also believes that the American people’s use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy.”

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/briefings/20010507.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush had pulled the US out of the negotiations for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. The September 11 attacks were still four months away (Bush basically read about them, was warned about them over the summer and did nowt). 

Anyway, this idea that the American way of life, which is actually about the high hydrocarbon way of life for a minority of people within the US,  – the wealthy, is somehow sacred. It’s fascinating from a theological point of view, prosperity, gospel and all that nonsense. 

See also Bush Snr  “American way of life is non-negotiable” in 1992.

What I think we can learn from this

Humans are very good, at pretending things that give them comfort and power are somehow ordained by a bearded sky god.  It can form a last redoubt of “Oh, you don’t respect my beliefs as a member of the faith-based community?” (Well, no, I’m a member of the reality based community.)

What happened next

Bush continued to shit all over the planet. And in my fantasy, he’s in the next cell along to John Howard, at The Hague to be charged with crimes against humanity and future generations…

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.

Categories
Coal Energy United States of America

April 30, 2001 – Dick Cheney predicts 1000 new power plants

Twenty two years ago, on this day, April 30, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney has a fever dream in Toronto calling for 1300 new power stations

In an April 30 speech, Cheney said that the U.S. needs to build at least 1,300 electric power plants (averaging 300 megawatts) between now and 2020, “more than one new plant per week.” Cheney downplayed the potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources – suggesting that conservation is just “a sign of personal virtue” and that relying on renewables would threaten “our way of life.”

http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/1300powerplants.htm

[This gets him in trouble, he bravely sends out his wife Lynne the next day to “clarify.” He can’t do it himself because of ‘laryngitis’]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the de facto Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, says that he wants 1000 new coal fired power stations. This is an echo of Nixon’s project independence in 1974, which Cheney will have been well aware of, since Cheney had been serving in the Nixon White House at this point. The context was that Cheney’s puppet George Bush had announced that he was not going to continue negotiations around ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, in effect, they thought, killing it. That wasn’t the case, because the Russians eventually signed but I’m getting ahead of myself.

What I think we can learn from this

Old white men don’t learn. And they have visions of power, in both the literal and metaphorical sense, to be grand numbers, “look at my works, ye mighty and despair.” And the way that these visions are promulgated loudly and long, is partly designed to demonstrate to them and their supporters, their power, but also to demoralise those awful environmentalists who believe that – and this is the heresy –  there are limits to what humans both should and indeed can do to the planet without serious consequences.

What happened next

Cheney’s vision of 1000 power stations did as well as his vision of Iraq as a peaceful American dependency full of grateful Iraqis (*)

(* or maybe we should not take his public pronouncements as evidence of naivete, but rather a willingness to lie…)

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.