Tag: 2001

Categories
Science

January 23, 2001 – alarming predictions

Twenty five  years ago, on this day, January 23rd, 2001, 

World temperatures may increase by as much as six degrees Celsius over the next century, leading climate change scientists say in an alarming report that adds new urgency to the warnings on global warming.

The projected increase, which would be the most rapid temperature change in the past 10,000 years, is expected to push sea levels up by nearly a metre, threatening tens of millions of people, and generate more floods, droughts and fires.

The report found that the 1990s were the hottest decade since instrument records were first taken in 1861 and that 1998 was the hottest year. And for the first time scientists agreed that the warming is mostly due to human activity.

The gloomy prognosis was released in Shanghai yesterday by the respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a joint project of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation.

International Climate Change Taskforce report

2001 Schauble, J. 2001. Six Degrees Hotter: Global Climate Alarm Bells Ring Louder. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been warning about CO2 build up causing warming in the 20th century of significant proportion since – well, you can say Calendar in 1938 but I really think Gilbert Plass in 1953 is the point at which people start to pay attention, (some attention). And by the late 1970s as you’ll see from the CO2 Newsletter, The warnings were firm, firm enough to alarm scientists and some politicians.

The IPCC was created to provide, well, to provide scientific imprimatur, but also to make sure that the independent scientists didn’t get paid too much attention, as they had over ozone. 

The specific context was that by 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Report was coming out.  T

What I think we can learn from this is that we should remember is that scientists have to cope with the fact that journalists will either misunderstand the research because it’s complex and new,, or they will overstate it and “sex up the dossier” in search of a bigger, bolder headline, and then the scientist catches it in the neck for what the journalist wrote. You also get the need for the media system to just go to extremes. And the examples I’d use from 1988 are Steven Schneider being disinvited because he wasn’t alarmist enough. And also a hack said to Robyn Williams of the ABC Science Show “oh, now we’ll need the backlash.”

What happened next

That trouble ahead! We kept burning fossil fuels, and CO2 kept accumulating in the atmosphere. And, you know, the rest,

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: 

January 23, 1957 – New Zealand scientist warns about consequences of carbon dioxide build-up  

January 23, 1992 – denialist bullshit in the Fin

January 23, 1995 – The Larsen B starts to break up with us.. (Ice, Ice, baby)

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 10, 2001 – Podesta defends the Clinton-Gore climate record from Bill McKibben’s criticism

Twenty five years ago, on this day, January 10th, 2001,

A letter by John Podesta to the New York Times, defending the Clinton Record from an attack by Bill McKibben, is published. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/10/opinion/l-white-house-acted-on-global-warming-358517.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2026 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that 8 years of Al Gore as Veep hadn’t ushered in the ecotopia.  There was the “BTU tax,” foiled by fossil fuel interests in 1993 and then the pre-emptive strike against the Kyoto Protocol.  So, not much to post about.

 The specific context was that Gore had had the 2000 election stolen out from under his nose by the Supreme Court mates of his opponent’s dad – George HW Bush.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are no saviours.  At absolute best politicians can be forced to nudge things into a slightly less rapidly suicidal direction. You want actual change, you need social movements. But they tend to flame out after a few years (repression is exhausting, after all)  

What happened next is Gore dusted himself off and gave the world “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006.

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, obv

Also on this day: 

January 10, 1978 – World Meteorological Organisation outlines World Climate Programme…

January 10, 1991 – “Separate studies rank 1990 as world’s warmest year”  #ShiftingBaseline

January 10, 2023 Labour launches a Climate and Environment Forum

Categories
Activism Australia Kyoto Protocol

November 7, 2001 – Australian Conservation Foundation bluffs in support of Kyoto ratification

Twenty four years ago, on this day, November 7th, 2001, ACF tries to say the rest of the world is raring to go…

“What is clear is that the rest of the world is not waiting around for the US and is getting on with the changes to their economies that are necessary to cut greenhouse pollution. Unless Australia ratifies we will not be able to benefit from international markets emerging in environmental technologies and greenhouse pollution reduction. Australia must get on with the job and join other nations committing to ratify the protocol.”

Australian Conservation Foundation, Media Release, Australia loses out as world moves closer to Kyoto, 7 November 2001.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. 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 was that Australia had been asshole-ish on climate from 1991 to 1995, but that ramped up once the Liberal National Party government of John Howard came along in March 1996.  They’d managed to extort a fantastically generous deal at the third COP, in Kyoto, in December of 1997, which meant Australia could increase its emissions.  But still Howard was refusing to ratify. 

The specific context was that in March 2001 President George W Bush, gifted the presidency by his dad’s Supreme Court picks, had pulled the US out of Kyoto, despite having said on the campaign trail the previous year that C02 from power plants would need regulating.

What I think we can learn from this – Conservation/Environment groups are forced to use the language of economic growth and “more technology” in order to seem responsible and have any chance to exert even the tiniest of pressures.

What happened next – it would be 2007 before Australia ratified Kyoto, under Labor Prime Minister 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.

References and further reading

The Veil of Kyoto

Also on this day: 

November 7, 1973 – Energy security avant la Ukraine: Nixon announces “Project Independence”

 November 7, 1997 – Australian governments bang heads in pre-Kyoto bash 

November 7, 2000 – Australian “The Heat is on” report released

November 7, 2022 – journalist covering JSO protest arrested

Categories
Coal United States of America

October 16, 2001 – Clean coal blah blah. 

Twenty four years ago, on this day, October 16th, 2001 

Washington, DC – With many areas of the country still facing tight electricity supplies in coming years, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today announced more than $110 million in new projects to apply leading edge clean coal technologies to improve the reliability and environmental performance of the Nation’s coal-burning power plants.

Abraham announced that the federal government will share the costs of outfitting eight power plants to become “showcases” of ways coal plants can continue generating low-cost electricity with better performance and in compliance with tight environmental standards.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/techline/techlines/2001/tl_ppii_sel.html

October 16, 2001 Abraham Announces Projects to Bolster Electricity Supply from Coal Plants “Power Plant Improvement Initiative” is Precursor to President’s Clean Coal Technology Program

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was that the US was in one of its periodic phases of announcing “energy independence” (see also Nixon in late 1973).

The specific context was Dubya Bush on the campaign trail had said that carbon dioxide would need regulating. After his daddy’s Supreme Court picks gifted him the White House, his boss (Dick Cheney) kibboshed that.

What I think we can learn from this – they lie, they lie, they lie.

What happened next – most of the power plants never got built (in part thanks to the Sierra Club, with a $50m donation from Michael Bloomberg).

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 16, 1956 – will H-bombs knock the world off balance!?

October 16, 1979 – Exxon memo on the potential impact of fossil fuel combustion – All Our Yesterdays

October 16, 1990 – Green groups say yes to “Ecologically Sustainable Development”

October 16, 1997 – Australian businessman declares climate change “no longer an issue”

Categories
Coal United States of America

July 2, 2001 – NRDC blasts “Bush” plan to increase reliance on coal

Twenty four  years ago, on this day, July 2nd, 2001, 

NRDC Blasts Bush Plan to Increase Reliance on Coal; Group Says Increased Coal Burning Will Accelerate Global Warming

WASHINGTON (July 2, 2001) – Responding to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham’s appearance today at a groundbreaking ceremony for a new Kentucky coal power plant, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) blasted the Bush administration for its plan to increase U.S. reliance on coal to generate electricity.

“The Bush administration wants to allow dirty coal-fired power plants to increase their pollution dramatically,” said David Hawkins, director of NRDC’s Climate Center. “That would accelerate global warming, poison more of our water, scar more of our landscape, and kill more of our citizens with particulate air pollution.”

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/010702a.asp

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm.  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 was that the US had decided, under Bush’s dad (George Herbert Hoover – sorry, Walker) not to do anything about climate change. They threatened to boycott the 1992 Earth Summit  if the UNFCCC draft text included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. And the proponents of that, well, they blinked.

The specific context was that “Dubya” on the campaign trail in 2000 had said that he would regulate carbon dioxide emissions.  And then, once President Cheney – sorry, Bush – took office he said “nah” and also pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.  Just plain evil.  

What I think we can learn from this. Politicians will say WHATEVER they think you want to hear to get into office. 

What happened next Bush/Cheney’s plan to build hundreds of coal-fired power stations didn’t work out so well, in part because Michael Bloomberg funded the Sierra Club to stop it all. 

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