Tag: 2003

Categories
Australia

May 27, 2003 – Albo makes all the right noises about Kyoto

Twenty three years ago, on this day, May 27th, 2003 Labor MP Anthony Albanese seconds Kyoto Protocol legislation in Parliament,

MEDIA RELEASE: Anthony Albanese – 26 May 2003

Today, the Federal Member for Grayndler Anthony Albanese MP was pleased to second a Private Members Bill in Federal Parliament designed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.

Moved by the Shadow Minister for Sustainability & the Environment Kelvin Thomson MP, the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Bill 2003 will give legal effect to Australia’s Kyoto target and ensure Australian industry can take advantage of emerging new markets when the treaty comes into international force.

http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/albanese-seconds-kyoto-protocol-legislation-in-parliament

“Back at home, the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Kelvin Thomson, introduced a private member’s bill for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on 26 May 2003. As well as calling for the ratification of the Protocol, the Bill sets out requirements for the Commonwealth Environment Minister to prepare systems for involvement in international emissions trading schemes, a National Climate Change Action Plan, and imposes an obligation on the Government to ensure that Australia’s target of 108% of its 1990 emissions is not exceeded during the period 2008 to 2012.”

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NatEnvLawRw/2003/2.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 306ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Prime Minister John Howard had resisted Kyoto ratification, despite an incredibly generous deal having been negotiated by his Environment minister. In June 2002 Howard had, on World Environment Day, said he wasn’t going to ratify because it wasn’t in Australia’s economic interest.

And you had a young MP called Anthony Albanese who was part of the Opposition front bench, and they were trying to “punch the bruise.” They were trying to say that Labour would be better on the environment and appeal to some of the green voters who were deserting them for the Green Party. 

The specific context was that we were still deep in the pretending phase. Completely unlike now.

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians make all the right noises early on in their career. Once they finally get into power, if they do well, it’s a story. It’s the sort of thing you see with Tony Blair in the late 1980s – it’s amusing and dispiriting. 

What happened next. Well, Albanese did eventually become Prime Minister. And guess what? We are not saved.

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: 

May 27, 1927 – Ford ceases to produce the Model-T

May 27, 1971 – Australia gets a Minister of the Environment 

May 27, 1973 – World Council of Churches wrings its hands

May 27, 1996 – Not just a river in Egypt – denial in #Australia, organised, ramifying…

May 27, 2025 – Infantilising critics

Categories
Academia Coal United States of America

February 18, 2003 – “Coal Fires Burning Around the World: A Global Catastrophe”

Twenty three years ago, on this day, February 18, 2003,

This special coal fires edition of the International Journal of Coal Geology is a by-product of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) symposium entitled Coal Fires Burning Around the World: A Global Catastrophe, held on February 18, 2003 in Denver, CO. The purpose of the symposium, organized and convened by Glenn B. Stracher of East Georgia College, Robert B. Finkelman of the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, VA, and Tammy P. Taylor of Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM, was to disclose the severity of the coal fires problem to the scientific, engineering, and lay communities and to promote interest in the interdisciplinary study of this environmental catastrophe.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0166516204000096

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been measuring carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere accurately since 1958, and had been speculating about shitfuckery of monumental proportions, And from the late 70s that speculation had firmed up, there were various efforts to disprove or to test the idea significantly. For example, the Charney Report. But these had come to naught because of politicians’ ignorance and a lack of a social movement/civil society push.

It’s fairly elementary. 19th century physics, Greenhouse gases trap heat. Carbon dioxide is one, not the only greenhouse gas. If you put lots more of it into the atmosphere, you will get more heat. Take a look at Venus..

The specific context was that by 2003 it was clear that the United States, under George W Bush was not going to be any better, in fact, possibly even worse than his dad, and that there was going to be hell to pay. 

Of course, that hell would be paid, in the first instance, by all the other species on the planet, and people, mostly not rich and white and people not yet born. But hell has a way of catching up with you. And here we are in 2026. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the warnings have been endless, and there is a subset of humanity that just doesn’t give a fuck, and they are able to hire all sorts of goons, physical goons like ICE, intellectual goons like, well, frankly, most of academia, including humanities and well, it’s their planet. We just cling to the edges of it

What happened next: Bush kept being Bush. He was then, from sort of 2002-3 onwards, bigging up” technology”, which is always their answer, regardless of how implausible it is. 

And the emissions and the concentrations and the impacts they kept making themselves felt.

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: 

February 18, 1991 – Governor Bill Clinton says would give “serious consideration” to cuts of 20-30 per cent by 2004.

February 18, 2011 – Scientist quits advisor role (because ignored on climate?)

February 18, 2004 – “An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”

Categories
France

August 12 2003 – French heatwave

Twenty two years ago, on this day, August 12th, 2003,

French heatwave

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3190585.stm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 376ppm. 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 things scientists warned us about? Yeah, they were starting to come true. Science can be irritating like that.

The specific context was – the Europeans had long been better (slightly less terrible) on climate than the settler colonies (USA, Australia)

What I think we can learn from this – you fuck around, you find out. Except those who find out first (the poor, and to some extent the old) did the least fucking around. Nobody said life was fair.

What happened next. We continued to fuck around. Now we are finding out. We will continue to find out. We will not enjoy finding out.

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: 

August 12, 1970 – US Senate warned about climate change

August 12, 1990 – Channel 4 shows crackpot documentary “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”

August 12, 2009 – Deutsche bank enters modelling war in Australia – All Our Yesterdays

August 12, 2010 – BZE launches energy plan for Australia

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

February 17, 2003 – “please ratify Kyoto Protocol” advisory group begs John Howard

Twenty three years ago, on this day, February 17th, 2003,

Even though the Kyoto Protocol “does not offer a global solution to climate change,” an Australian government advisory group wants the country to ratify the international climate change agreement anyway.

Why? Because the treaty is a “step towards a global climate change response,” according to a report released Feb. 18 by the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Advisory Group.

Additionally, the cost of meeting the treaty’s first commitment period would be low, with or without Australia’s inclusion, the report noted. However, if Australia ratifies Kyoto, “economic costs associated with meeting the target are estimated to be less than half of the costs that would be incurred if Australia takes action to meet the target from outside the treaty framework,” the report concluded.

The report was prepared in response to a request from the premiers of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria.

While Australia’s ratification would certainly improve the protocol’s chances of entering into force, the treaty still relies heavily on a pending commitment from Russia, which is responsible for 17.4% of the world’s total emissions. The Russian government had hinted it would ratify the treaty by the end of last year, but that still has not happened.

http://elibrary.cenn.org/Report/Report%20of%20the%20Kyoto%20Protocol%20Ratification.pdf

 AUSTRALIAN GOV’T ADVISORY GROUP WANTS COUNTRY TO RATIFY KYOTO Oxy-Fuel News

Vol. 15, Issue: 9 [Copyright 2003 Chemical Week Associates. All rights reserved.]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was there seems to have been a concerted push by various entities(stat governments especially)  to make it possible for Australia to ratify the  Kyoto Protocol, even though Howard had ruled it out six months previously. Decisions can be overturned, U turns can be forced. And they’ll have known that. These people will have known that an emissions trading scheme proposal was planned to come forward to a Howard cabinet again (one had been defeated in 2000.)

What I think we can learn from this is that business was severely split, because Kyoto was going to make some of them some money in terms of consultancy fees and all the rest of it for carbon trading. And this is a case where business interests are trying to exert pressure on politicians. Politicians are running for their own show as well. And there’s also the geo-politics with Howard wanting to be absolutely in lockstep with George W Bush. (I mean, essentially, Australia is a US colony, frankly, let’s not kid ourselves.)

What happened next?  The Business Council of Australia had to say they had no position on Kyoto ratification. Howard scuppered an ETS with his own personal veto. And eventually, in ,Australia did ratify Kyoto – for what that was worth. I.e. not much. See also, the academic article “The Veil of Kyoto.” 

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

January 14, 2003 – WWF Australia raises the alarm

Twenty two years ago, on this day, January 14th, 2003,

Human-induced global warming was a key factor in the severity of the 2002 drought in Australia, the worst in the country’s history, according to a report issued Tuesday [14 January] by WWF Australia. The report is part of an effort by Australian environmental organizations to convince the Liberal Government of John Howard to reverse its policy and sign the Kyoto climate protocol.

Human Actions Blamed for Worst Australian Drought. Jan 15. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2003/2003-01-15-02.html SYDNEY, Australia, January 15, 2003 (ENS) –

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush and then John Howard had both pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto Protocol, citing economic interests. (But it went deeper than that it was about culture and the way the world should be.) The Millennium drought was causing mayhem, and WWF was oh, sorry, trying to stitch together coalitions to put pressure on governments, especially the federal government.

What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs even the centrists, (and you don’t get more centrist, or, in fact, neoliberal and elite etc, than WWF) will have to try multiple times to get any attention. This particular report gained no traction. WWF did further work with the Wentworth group and insurers. It wasn’t until another business friendly coalition back in 2006, that they began to get through. It’s a bit like trying to chop down a tree. You can’t do it in one blow, usually.

What happened next

The emissions kept climbing. The Age of consequences (for rich white people) has begun. 

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: 

Categories
Temperature records

July 3,2003 and 2023 – it’s getting warmer. And warmer.

Twenty years ago – and one year ago – on this day, July 3rd, 2003 and 2003, temperature records all…

In an astonishing announcement on global warming and extreme weather, the World Meteorological Organisation signalled last night that the world’s weather is going haywire.

In a startling report, the WMO, which normally produces detailed scientific reports and staid statistics at the year’s end, highlighted record extremes in weather and climate occurring all over the world in recent weeks, from Switzerland’s hottest-ever June to a record month for tornadoes in the United States – and linked them to climate change.

3 July 2003 Independent report and here too

And

July 3rd 2023, the first time on record that the Earth’s temperature exceeded 17C

Remember this date. Decades in the future we will look back on 17C with fondness

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm (2003) and 421 (2023). As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that scientists have been saying it was getting warmer for 100 years. They’ve been saying that carbon dioxide was probably the cause since 1953 (earlier if you count Guy Callendar). They were saying that weather records would fall. And guess what? Temperature records did fall 20 years apart in the UK. 

What we learn from this is what we learn from history;  “the only thing we learn is that we learn nothing from history.” 

What happened next? The emissions kept climbing. The atmospheric concentrations kept climbing. The temperatures will keep climbing this year 2024 And by the way, I’m narrating in December 2023. It will be warmer still because of El Nino. And it really does look terminal for our species. Happy Days in the Samuel Beckett sense. 

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 3, 1986 – House of Lords debate about the atmosphere and fuel use…

July 3, 2008 – Greenpeace activists enter New South Wales coal power station

July 3, 2008 – Greenpeace occupies an Australian coal plant.

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

December 23, 2003 – Vestas opens Tasmanian wind turbine factory

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 23, 2003, a wind turbine factory opened in Tasmania…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 2002 the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target had finally started at a national level. It was smaller than had been promised and later than it needed to be, but nonetheless in existence; wind was always going to be a large part of that. And being able to manufacture wind turbines in Australia for the domestic market seemed like a good idea at the time the Danish company Vestas opened a factory in Tasmania.

What I think we can learn from this

 is that it would have been possible to have a proper domestic manufacturing industry. Yes you would have started with foreign-owned companies but it didn’t need to have stayed like that. But it wasn’t to be…

What happened next

Vestas just pulled out a few years later as it was obvious that the Howard government was going to do everything it could to slow down or stop renewable energy in Australia. And it wasn’t clear if that would ever end – so, cut your losses. 

See tomorrow’s post…

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 Scientists

 December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 8, 2003, the Australian chief scientific adviser was being asked to explain about how he squared offering impartial advice with his other day-job of … working for Rio Tinto.

Questions raised over chief scientist’s Rio Tinto role 8 December 2003 – Reporter: Andrew Fowler (no longer on ABC website). See also Scorcher by Clive Hamilton

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard clearly did not give a shit about climate change, and wasn’t bothered who knew it.

Formal scientific advice channels to Australian Prime Ministers had started in 1989 with the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council, under Ralph Slayter. And one of the first things they talked about – well, climate change (link).

What I think we can learn from this

Australia is essentially a quarry with a state attached to it; not so much a banana republic, as a coal republic. But we will persist with our pretences…

Fun fact – Labor are not that much better. In 2011 Penny Sackett resigned because Gillard et al. were not listening. This is not about personalities or dispositions – political parties are there to manage the state for “better” capital accumulation.

What happened next

Batterham eventually stepped aside.

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 Kingdom

October 24, 2003 – Last flight of the Concorde

Twenty years ago, on this day, October 24, 2003, the last flight of the white elephant known as Concorde took place. The loss of a plane upon take-off in Paris had been the last nail in the coffin.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a disaster with a Concorde that had crashed while taking off at Orly because something had fallen off the previous plane and got spat into a fuel tank. But longer term Concorde has always been a prestige vanity project. It had never made money. 

What I think we can learn from this

Well, the history of Concorde is intimately tied to the history of atmospheric science, and indeed, the birth of the modern environmental movement because of concerns over sonic booms, and ozone depletion (the late 60s and early 70s are full of this). And you could argue, I think with just cause, that the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank in the United States really came into existence because of the successful defeat of SSTS by Congress, following a battle against supersonic air travel by American environmentalists, etc. 

More broadly it’s the 20 year anniversary, so there might be some “think pieces” about the retreat from technology and human optimism no longer being a thing, shrinking from our Promethean heritage and duties, because people can knock out for one and a half 1000 words about this crap easily enough.

What happened next

Well, there’s always new planes on the drawing board. They’re lighter and faster and all the rest of it, apparently. But not supersonic. 

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

September 25, 2003 – Bob Carr “strikes greenhouse deal” with European investors

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 25, 2003, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, who had been aware of the greenhouse effect as a problem since 1971, keeps going in his efforts to make the state a hub of carbon offsets/trading and so on …

“Carr strikes greenhouse deal with European investors”

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s954007.htm [link now dead]

PM – Thursday, 25 September , 2003 Reporter: Peta Donald

(David Kemp slaps it down – not carbon trading.)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Federal Government of Australia had shown time and again that it was not interested in carbon trading or making any international linkages that weren’t bullshit photo-ops with George Bush. This was not to stop the New South Wales government and Bob Carr from pursuing such deals which he did…

What I think we can learn from this is that in a Commonwealth system there are multiple points of entry and pressure, and there is a back-and-forth between States and Federal Government as there is between federal and international systems. When one is failing the other is supposed to pick up the slack and vice versa. That’s the theory -sometimes both are failing …

What happened next – nothing much came of it, it all just kind of petered out, as far as I remember (if you know different, drop me a line!).

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.