Tag: 2001

Categories
Australia

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

Twenty four years ago, on this day, June 5th, 2001, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr (ALP) promises an advertising blitz

The Carr Government has promised a $17.5million advertising campaign on environmental education, provoking conservationists to demand that the Premier should lead with actions – not words.

The campaign, to run over 3 1/2 years, began on television last night, featuring the theme song It’s a Living Thing, sung by Christine Anu.

The launch follows Labor criticism of Federal Coalition advertising campaigns, most recently attacks on the $6 million Agriculture Advancing Australia campaign, a $3.6 million promotion of the Natural Heritage Trust, and a $3.9 million greenhouse campaign featuring Don Burke.

The NSW campaign will focus on electricity, water and paper.

2001 Woodford, J. 2001. Carr Promises $17.5m TV Blitz For Green Ads. Sydney Morning Herald, June 6, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australians had been warned about “the greenhouse effect” very effectively between 1988 and 1991.  And had then, largely, chosen to forget/ignore the issue.  From 1996 the Federal Government was overtly hostile to all actual climate action, and the states were beginning to pick up some of the slack.

The specific context was that Bob Carr had been switched on to the climate issue in 1971, thanks to a visit by biologist Paul Ehrlich.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can have all the publicity you like, but if you don’t have sustained and sustaining social movement organisations, all the knowledge and concern will just leak away, like tears in the rain.

What happened next – it would be another five years – late 2006 – before Australian civil society would begin to say it cared about climate change.

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: 

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

Categories
Australia

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

On this day June 4, 2001, 24 years ago –  bureaucrat for the “Australian Greenhouse Office” (unlamented, frankly) told senators what public opinion appeared to be….

In the next fortnight just as Parliament has risen for winter a $23 million climate change campaign will be broadcast, mailed, and plastered in newspapers. It’s not the first. In May 2001, the viewing public enjoyed a six-week ”burst” of ads on the greenhouse effect featuring gardening guru Don Burke. It cost almost $5 million. On June 4, 2001, in the hush of Senate committee room 3, floor 2, in Parliament House, Canberra, a Greenhouse Office bureaucrat revealed, ”In a six-week period, we had 425 60-second advertisements, 375 30-second advertisements, 660 15-second advertisements and a further dozen advertisements, and my figures seem to have some problem qualifying whether those were 60 or 30 seconds.” The same officer revealed that post-campaign research of 1000 respondents showed that 88 per cent of respondents considered the greenhouse effect to be a real problem and only 9 per cent considered it a myth.

Campbell, C. 2007. Back to the future with ad blitz. Canberra Times. 25 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was Australians had – thanks to the efforts of the “Greenhouse Project” – a combined effort of the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO Atmospheric Physics folks, been very well informed about climate change (at that time known as “the Greenhouse Effect”) in 1987-89.  There was an effort to continue this work (Greenhouse Action Australia), but it ran into the sand.  

The specific context was John Howard was trying to give the APPEARANCE of taking action, while avoiding any real commitment. By the time the bureaucrat spoke, President Bush had pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, and it was obvious that Howard would do the same, sooner or later (he finally did on World Environment Day, June 5, 2002).

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings –  we can all agree that x is a problem. And it is caused by THEM over THERE.

As “active citizens” – public opinion/attention/concern rises and falls. It means very little unless it is harnessed, nurtured etc. But that’s hard – much harder than organising a march…

Academics might want to ponder… how they might communicate these cycles….

What happened next: Howard went on to win two more elections. Australians voted for climate action in 2007 and Kevin Rudd ratfucked everyone. The emissions kept climbing. 

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

Xxx 

References

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

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 4, 1979 – Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind – 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…

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 27, 2001 – only Australia cheering Bush’s Kyoto pull out.

On this day 24 years ago Australia’s status as a colony of the United States – an enthusiastic one at that – was confirmed for the (checks notes) gazillionth time.

“Washington has mounted a diplomatic campaign to deflect criticism of its repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol, instead seeking support for its goal of broadening the UN climate change treaty to include developing countries.

And Canberra is Washington’s prize recruit in this campaign.

Asked in Wednesday’s Washington Post which countries backed him on greenhouse, President George Bush said “Australia [and Canada] said they understand why the US took this position”.

“However, the Canadian government has criticised the US for pulling out of the Kyoto process. Only Australia has provided uncritical support and is therefore Washington’s “prize recruit” in its campaign to kill the Kyoto Protocol, according to a report in the April 27 Australian Financial Review.”

Hordern, N. 2001. Bush wary of `kiss of death’ for backers in protocol pact. Australian Financial Review, April 27 , p.30.

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 “settled” (invaded) Australia started life in 1788 as a dumping ground for convicts who couldn’t be hanged and/or sent to the American colonies.  The various colonies gained measures of self-government and in 1901 the Commonwealth came into existence, but Australia was still basically a colony.  Which was fine, but in 1942, after the fall of Singapore to the Japanese, it was clear the Brits weren’t going to be able to defend Oz. So the Aus Prime Minister pivoted to the Yanks – needs must. And Australia has been, in all significant respects, a colony ever since. So it goes.

What we learn. Colonial subjects like to imagine they are free. Everyone wants to imagine they are free.

What happened next. The Australian political “elite” (never were scare quotes so relevant) have continued to be craven and pathetic on climate. Why should anyone expect anything else?

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 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate – All Our Yesterdays

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

April 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate – All Our Yesterdays

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