Tag: 2002

Categories
Business Responses Denial United States of America

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2002, a major automaker decided to leave the denialist/predatory delay outfit the Global Climate Coalition.

DETROIT — Environmentalists are claiming victory following General Motors Corp.’s decision to quit a lobbying group that has led the opposition to a 1997 global warming treaty reached in Kyoto, Japan.

Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler Corp. withdrew earlier.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article/usa-general-motors-quits-global-warming-lobby-group

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that almost everything the Global Climate Coalition had fought for, had been won – a weakened initial treaty followed by the avoidance of any domestic carbon tax followed by the avoidance of the US being involved in Kyoto (beforehand by the Byrd-Hagel resolution, and then afterwards in March 2001, by George Dubya Bush‘s announcement of pulling out of Kyoto in contradiction of his election promise to regulate CO2.) 

What we learn from this is that culture wars can get out of hand. The Global Climate Coalition had done some things that were reputationally risky and dubious. And you often see corporations which have to worry a lot about their reputation with customers getting nervous when the gloves come off, and lobbying becomes a vicious public bloodsport. It is not because they are in any way “woke” – it’s just that they worry that they won’t be able to flog their product as easily if they are regarded as assholes by customers. 

What happened next is very shortly after this, thanks to other outfits leaving, I think Ford, and so forth, the Global Climate Coalition basically dissolved itself, declaring “mission accomplished.” 

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

Categories
Australia

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch.

Twenty two years ago, on this day, March 6th, 2002, some Australian “economists” think George Dubya Bush is smart and competent.

Reducing greenhouse emissions to levels required in the Kyoto Protocol would lift unemployment and energy prices, according to new research by Australia’s chief rural and resources forecaster.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics said the US approach to reducing world greenhouse emissions offered a more realistic chance of reducing the possibility of significant climate change.

Executive director Dr Brian Fisher said the US approach offered “a potential avenue for bringing global developing countries into the abatement effort, while still facilitating their economic growth”.

He said there was little value in Australia ratifying the United Nations treaty on reducing worldwide greenhouse emissions without the United States and developing nations.

Dr Fisher’s remarks follow the first modelling conducted by the Government’s main economic think-tank since the last meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Morocco in November which finalised most treaty rules.

“The consequences of Australia ratifying the Kyoto Protocol are a significant structural adjustment to the Australian economy with a severe regional impact on jobs and on several major industries,” Dr Fisher said.

In a paper to be presented today to ABARE’s annual Outlook conference, Dr Fisher said domestic electricity prices would rise by between 37 per cent and 50 per cent by 2010 and 2015 on current projections and Australia would incur a 1 per cent loss in gross national product by 2015.

Koutsoukis, J. 2002. ABARE backs US on emissions. The Australian Financial Review, 6 March, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374.3.ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol process the year before. Bush was spouting all sorts of bullshit about the costs of doing anything about climate change and how wonderful CCS and hydrogen would be. And this was an opportunity for sycophants at ABARE to lend their important support. 

What I think we can learn from this is that lickspittle is a really powerful word. 

What happened next

Well Bush continued to be a douche. ABARE continued to be douchey. No social movements worthy of the name ever emerged. And the emissions kept climbing. 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:

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”

Categories
Denial International processes United States of America

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 16, 2002, The Times Newspaper reports

Conservative lobbyists in the US funded by Esso have urged President Bush to derail the Earth summit in Johannesburg because it is anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western.

Browne, A. 2002. USA: Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit ,The Times, August 16

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 


The context was it was 10 years since Rio and the United Nations does like a good round number conference. George Dubya Bush had recently been doing some talk about “clean skies” and technology, this and that. 

And the anti Climate Lobby groups just wanted to make sure that he didn’t slip. So this was laying down some “suppressing fire” and to force proponents of action to expend energy in simply keeping climate change (literally) ‘on the agenda.’ 

What I think we can learn from this

What’s interesting, what we can learn is, this is what they do. They’re constantly laying down “suppressing fire”, which didn’t really work as well as they’d hoped. But it makes you feel good when you do it, keeps you in a job, makes you test your ammo, and your guns, so why not? I can say the language is extraordinary, but nothing special. They do genuinely frame it as liberty and freedom and democracy versus the evil globalist at least for public consumption. 

What happened next

Climate stayed on the agenda. Bush stayed a prick. The carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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
Academia Activism Australia

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 14, 2002, Aussie economists tried to get the smallest, most inadequate action taken…

“In a further response to what many see as Australia’s failure on the environment, more than 270 of the country’s academic economists called on 14 August [2002] for Prime Minister John Howard to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without delay. Howard rejected the Kyoto Protocol in June this year, stating that it would not be in the country’s interest to ratify without the inclusion of the US and developing nations. This is despite the fact that a recent survey of Australian citizens revealed that 71% believe it would be in the country’s interest to ratify.

“As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it serious environmental, economic and social risks and that preventive steps are justified,” says a statement by the economists. “Policy options are available that would slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia, and these may in fact improve productivity in the long term.”

However, Environment and Heritage Minister Dr David Kemp, told journalists on 19 August that Australia intends to keep to the targets laid out in the Kyoto Protocol, despite the fact that the country will not ratify.”

http://www.edie.net/news/16/Australias-environment-is-in-reverse/5878/

Excerpt from report by Radio Australia on 14 August

The Australian government is under further pressure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in the lead-up to the World Environment Summit in Johannesburg later this month. Samantha Hawley reports:

[Hawley] More than 250 economists have sent a message to the federal government, urging it to sign up to the protocol before the Johannesburg summit begins. Clive Hamilton, from the policy think tank, the Australia Institute, says the economists believe it will increase jobs and living standards.

[Hamilton] It really does throw the question to the prime minister on what basis is he making these claims on the economic cost ofKyoto. [End of recording]

[Passage omitted]

[Hawley] The call comes as the government moves to release its long-awaited greenhouse gas abatement figures tomorrow, which were originally due out before the election.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had, on Earth Day (June 5) announced he would not send the Kyoto Protocol for ratification through the Australian parliament. Clive Hamilton/Australia Institute got 270 economists together to do an open letter.

What I think we can learn from this

This is the sort of thing you have to do to raise the cost of bad behaviour, show that other people see the world differently. It didn’t work, but that’s not the fault of the people who tried it.

What happened next

Howard continued to be an asshat. Knocked down an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2003.

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
Antarctica

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

Twenty one years ago, on this day, January 31, 2002, things began to fall apart.

31 January 2002–7 March 2002- the Larsen B sector collapsed and broke up, 3,250 km² of ice 220 m thick, covering an area comparable to the US state of Rhode Island, disintegrated and collapsed in one season.[6] Larsen B was stable for up to 12,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last glacial period, according to Queen’s University researchers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf

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

The context was folks had been talking about the impacts of greenhouse gas build-up on the Antarctic for a looooong time (try January 25, 1978)

What I think we can learn from this

Humans ignore warnings, especially if paying attention would be inconvenient to powerful people who have the ability to ‘help’ everyone else ignore those warnings.  Profound observation, I know – it’s what you have spent all month enjoying, no?

What happened next

It helped the film-makers who gave us “The Day After Tomorrow”(2004)  with their opening scene 

In 2005 British Sea Power’s album Open Season included a song called “Oh Larsen B”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HN0rqVJT4U

You had twelve thousand years and now it’s all over

Five hundred billion tonnes of the purest pack ice and snow

Oh Larsen B , oh won’t you fall on me?

Oh Larsen B , desalinate the barren sea

Oh I think it’s the start of the end

Like saw blades through the air

Your winter overture

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

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

December 16, 2002 – another knee-capping for renewable energy in Australia…

On this day, December 16 in 2002, the knee-capping of energy that isn’t fossil-based continued

“The director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, Frank Reid, says the organisation may have to abandon plans for a $60 million renewables venture capital fund if the Federal Government goes ahead with its decision to withdraw financial support from the organisation.”

Myer, R. (2002) Business – Energy research loses pivotal funding The Age 16th December

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 373ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

John Howard had won the 2001 election and set about further undermining renewable energy. The historical hatred of renewables among policy elites in Australia is fascinating – one speculation on it, by a devastatingly brilliant and handsome academic – is here.

Why this matters

If we had taken this seriously when the warnings started coming through, we would have

  1. Knocked the whole “consumption for consumptiton’s sake/as a replacement for meaning” thing on the head
  2. Done something about serious energy efficiency
  3. Done something about accelerating the research, development and deployment of renewables.

“We” (rich technocrats, mostly white, mostly male) didn’t think it mattered.  We thought our technology would save that subset of the species we call “us”.

What happened next?

Howard kept killing off renewables, every chance he got. Renewables have finally taken hold, but a) the delay, oh my the delay and b) they are additional to other energy demand, rather  than replacing it. We’re so toast.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

December 5, 2002 – Australian Government CCS support begins…

On this day, December 5 in 2002 the Australian “Prime Ministers Science and Industry Council” released a report called  “Beyond Kyoto- Innovation and Adaptation.”

This can be seen as the starting gun for Carbon Capture and Storage in Australia (it had already started moving in the UK).

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 373ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

John Howard had managed to get an absurdly sweet deal for Australia at the Kyoto conference in December 1997. Nonetheless, Australia had delayed ratifying, and on World Environment Day in June 2002 Howard finally did what people had long assumed – he copied George W. Bush in saying “nope.”  That meant that he’d have to put forward some other”solutions” to a problem he did not believe (and still does not believe?) is a problem.

It didn’t hurt that the chair of the PMSEIC, his chief scientist, Robin Batterham, was only doing the job part-time, i.e. when he wasn’t working for … Rio Tinto.

Why this matters. 

CCS for energy systems is absurd (CCS might have a role to play for industry, if the business models can be made to work).

What happened next?

A really good critique of the PMSEIC report was released shortly afterwards – see here.

Large sums of public money in Australia got wasted on CCS, with really nothing to show for it. But it’s too useful a rhetorical move to ever be finally killed off… And so here we are, twenty years later…

Categories
Australia

November 22, 2002 – private business battles on #climate become public in Australia

On this day, November 22 2002, the nasty spat within Australian business over whether to call for Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol broke out into public., with an article “Big business splits over greenhouse” by Miranda McLachlan in the Australian Financial Review

The dominant big business association, the Business Council of Australia, had backed Prime Minister John Howard in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol (even though Australia had been able to extort an absurdly generous “reduction” target of … an 8 per cent increase in emissions (more once you added the land-clearing loophole.

But over time, key business leaders – proponents of renewables, carbon trading etc, fought within the BCA for a change in its position.  They fought each other to a standstill, as reported in the Fin, and the BCA went to a “no position” position on Kyoto ratification…

See also – Bell, S. (2008). Rethinking the Role of the State: Explaining Business Collective Action at the Business Council of Australia. Polity, Vol. 40,. 4, 464-487

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 373ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Why this matters. 

When the business lobby splits, that’s when the fun starts. Which is why incumbent actors work so hard to stop those splits…

What happened next?

Howard held the line. Public pressure on climate only really kicked in in Australia in the second half of 2006.  The BCA promptly moved to various fall back positions.

The emissions kept climbing. The atmospheric concentrations kept climbing. Then came the ‘natural’ disasters.

Categories
Kyoto Protocol United States of America

Feb 14, 2002 – George Bush promises “Clean Skies” to distract from Kyoto-trashing…

On this day, 14th of February, Valentine’s Day 2002, 20 years ago, George W. Bush, the minority US president sent a Valentine’s Day love letter to the future called the “Clean Skies initiative.” And although the wrapping was attractive, the contents were deeply unhealthy. Clean Skies was supposed to solve the political problem created by Bush for Bush when he had pulled the US out of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol, and when Cheney (the real Prez?) had tried to kick start, yet more coal fired power plants. Folks weren’t fooled.

Why this matters? 

We need to remember that those in charge of society who got there being elected, or in this case being elected by their mates on the Supreme Court, do not have our best interests at heart. They have been kicking the can down the road, blindly making ridiculous promises based on unproven technologies. 

What happened next? 

Clean Skies was a “failure” if you judge it on reducing pollution. Looked at another way, it was a success, giving enough of an impression of “action” so the issue of air pollution couldn’t be used against him, even had the Democrats been minded to. Bush was reelected, or elected for the first time in 2004, relatively fair and square, if you don’t count, the swiftboating of John Kerry. And the emissions keep rising, the atmospheric concentrations keep rising. The only thing that doesn’t really rise are the viewing stats on this website.

Categories
Predatory delay United States of America

Feb 4, 2002- Global Climate Coalition calls it a day (“Mission accomplished”)

On this day in 2002, the Global Climate Coalition shut up shop, basically declaring mission accomplished. Well, they’d probably done it a few days earlier, but Imma use this – Anon. 2002. Global Climate Coalition Bows Out. Chemical Market Reporter, , Vol. 261, Issue 5, 4 February – as the marker.

The friendly sounding coalition – actually, an industry group dedicated to stopping action on climate change – had been formed in 1989, when it looks like serious action was possible and even probable, with new US President George HW Bush, having declared on the campaign trail, that those who were worried about the greenhouse effect should not discount the White House Effect.

Even then moves were  well afoot within Bush’s administration, especially under Chief of Staff, John Sununu, to make sure that the environmentally concerned people were sidelined. And that the whole issue just got kicked into the long grass. There were those who would cast active actual doubt on the science but usually, the Global Climate Coalition was a little bit more subtle. 

However, in 1995/6, it had gone too far, launching full throated vociferous attacks on the IPCC second assessment report. In 1997 Shell had pulled out because of the reputational risk. And this was followed later, by other groups, including Ford and GM. By February 2002 it was no longer needed. Because the administration of George HW Bush’s son, George W. Bush, was clearly not going to do anything on climate, having already pulled out of Kyoto. The Global Climate Coalition had therefore, lived as long as it needed to.

Why this matters

Don’t be fooled by names. When they say they’re something they are usually the opposite. They’re very determined. They’re very clever. They’re very well funded. They stick around, they do the work. They get what they want, usually, not always, but often. 

What happened next

Although the Global Climate Coalition was dead, individual companies continued to finance both outright denial and also predatory delay. And they’re still at it, of course. Full stop.