Tag: 2001

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.

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

John Howard sucks up to George Bush on climate wrecking – April 1, 2001

2001 On 1 April 2001 Prime Minister Howard wrote to President Bush and supported the United States’ position. He stated:

“I have long shared your view, and Australia has consistently argued, that a workable international framework to address climate change needs to be economically manageable and include developing countries, whose emissions will exceed those of OECD countries within this decade.

“In my view an effective global framework to address climate change needs to include commitments from all major emitters; unrestricted market-based mechanisms, including emissions trading; an approach to carbon sinks that captures both economic and environmental opportunities; a facilitative, rather than punitive, compliance system; and assistance for the most vulnerable countries to adapt to climate change.

“This will require that we engage developing countries, and seek firm commitments from them on future annual emissions. We will also need to encourage the European Union to re-think its opposition to market mechanisms and sinks, key issues for a cost-effective response to climate change.”

Letter from Prime Minister John Howard to United States President George W. Bush, see http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Howardletter.html [dead link]

Cited in NSW Parliamentary Library publiication 2002 – The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change: An Update By Stewart Smith

Clennell, A. 2001. Lead The World On Greenhouse Treaty, PM Urges Bush. Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April. p.2.

Hill revealed letter’s existence on 15 April. Greens Senator Bob Brown said yesterday the letter was mostly a public relations exercise for “domestic consumption”.

The context was

Bush had pulled out of Kyoto (despite campaign promises to regulate carbon dioxide) and this  was music to little Johnnie’s ears.

What I think we can learn from this

Those in power at the time were cretins. Thank goodness we know have giants in charge…

What happened next

Lots of technobabble and false promises. And climbing emissions.

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
Media United States of America

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

 Twenty two years ago, on this day, March 7, 2001, the US news network CNN showed what is “normal” and what is “bad” in its cosmology, when reporting on old white men in suits versus protests…

7 March 2001 CNN reports on climate protests “marring” (pointless) climate talks – Protests mar climate talks 

https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/italy/03/03/environment.summit/index.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were  climate negotiations in Italy, at which the Americans were – surprise surprise – basically saying “fuck you.” This was shortly after George Bush was selected as President. 

The Hague negotiations in November 2000 had ended in such a disaster that the meeting wasn’t finally closed. And so with your big Cheney as his vice president, it looks pretty perilous for international climate negotiations.

What I think we can learn from this

What’s important here is the framing that protest activity by civil society would besmirch the nice, cool, rational debates of our lords and masters. Now, if you put it bluntly, the journalist who wrote it, or the sub-editor who wrote it, would either say, “Well, look, it’s just a headline. And we don’t have much space.” They might agree with the point about the politics at a superficial level. But if pushed, they would say “No, why should the mob be able to influence what the smart technocrats are doing?” 

And that hatred of ordinary people, and their involvement is persistent. And it’s the case that if you don’t abide by that, then you don’t get your role as a journalist or as an academic or whatever. 

If you’re interested in this stuff, then obviously, reading Chomsky is a good idea, but also the life and times of Randolph Bourne who died just after World War One. Obviously Gramsci on the power of hegemony. If and how the popular press works, and any number of publications by the Glasgow Media Group etc

What happened next

Bush pulled out of Kyoto, an entirely sane and rational decision “marred” by protest.

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

January 29, 2001 – President Bush announces “energy taskforce” #TaskforceAnnouncementGrift

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, January 29 2001, newly-installed President George “Dubya” Bush announces an “energy taskforce”

The National Energy Policy Development Group was a group, created by Executive Order on January 29, 2001, that was chaired by Vice President Richard Cheney. The group, commonly referred to as the “Cheney Energy Task Force,” produced a National Energy Policy report in May 2001. [1] In a cover note to George W. Bush, Cheney wrote that “we have developed a national energy policy designed to help bring together business, government, local communities and citizens to promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound energy for the future.” [2] (pdf) The composition of the task force, according to the report, was confined to government officials.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cheney_Energy_Task_Force

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that Bush had won the Presidency (if not the actual election – but, you know, details) with the help of his Dad’s mates on the Supreme Court. The power behind the throne, Dick Cheney, was clearly interested in coal and nuclear, not this carbon emissions reductions nonsense.  So, there had to be a process for backtracking on loose talk of regulating carbon emissions that had been made during the campaign. A “taskforce” should do the job…

What I think we can learn from this

Taskforces are absolute catnip to liberals.

They function either as “cooling out the mark” – the way that a promise can be broken (“we consulted independent experts.. Changed circumstances… therefore…”), or as a way of delaying (perhaps indefinitely) any actual ACTION on promises, while offering CV tokens and grin-and-grip opportunities to would-be trouble-makers, who become obsessed with maintaining their spot at the table, rather than actually keeping tabs on what is (not) being done, or building political power outside ‘the Beltway’/’Westminster’ etc.

What happened next

Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, and started mangling the language in the direction of absurd techno-fantasies. True leadership.

Cheney fought two legal challenges against releasing the records of this Taskforce. Of course he did.

https://www.npr.org/2007/07/18/12067186/cheneys-energy-task-force-records-revealed

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
United States of America

January 17, 2001 – Enron engineers energy “blackouts” to gouge consumers

Twenty two years ago, on this day, January 17, 2001, Energy gouger “Enron” engineered some blackouts in California to… gouge. It’s what they did. It was their “corporate DNA”…

As the FERC report concluded, market manipulation was only possible as a result of the complex market design produced by the process of partial deregulation. Manipulation strategies were known to energy traders under names such as “Fat Boy”, “Death Star“, “Forney Perpetual Loop”, “Wheel Out”, “Ricochet”, “Ping Pong”, “Black Widow”, “Big Foot”, “Red Congo”, “Cong Catcher” and “Get Shorty”.[10]

In a letter sent from David Fabian to Senator Boxer in 2002, it was alleged that:

“There is a single connection between northern and southern California’s power grids. I heard that Enron traders purposely overbooked that line, then caused others to need it. Next, by California’s free-market rules, Enron was allowed to price-gouge at will.”[11]

2001 Enron energy blackouts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

But we are not supposed to remember this sort of behaviour. It doesn’t get institutionally remembered (included in textbooks, mentioned by mainstream commentators and columnists). That would be ‘impolite, or ‘political’ or even ‘unAmerican’ or ‘conspiracy theorising’.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that the free market was providing opportunities.  As per Adam Smith, author of the Wealth of Nations – ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices’.

What I think we can learn from this

That the “normal” workings of infrastructure are intensely political.  They are literally games of power.

That if we don’t remember the history, it will be repeated.

What happened next

Enron went under. And the shenanigans were forgotten,or dismissed as an aberration.

The trust between consumers/citizens and providers that would be needed for some kind of ‘energy transition’? Not helped.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.