Tag: 2003

Categories
Australia

February 17, 2003 – Bob Carr says John Howard showing poor leadership (too generous!)

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 17, 2003, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr (long aware of climate problems) accuses John Howard of merely going along with the US in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Bob Carr has today released a new report, sponsored by three Labor states, that he says shows that the cost to Australia of not joining the treaty will be higher than joining it. It claims that countries that do not ratify the agreement on greenhouse gas emissions will lose out on future investment opportunities in renewable energies. 

Mr Carr has also proposed setting up a new office in New South Wales to oversee the use of renewable energy and carbon emissions.

He says if the Prime Minister will not act then he is forced to show leadership on the issue. “I think it’s not unfair to say of our Prime Minister, that all his instincts are very, very conservative and he’s going along with America,” he said. “He’s going along with America but if there was ever a case for running a policy independent of Washington this is it.”   

ABC, 2003 Carr accuses Howard of poor leadership. 17 February 2003

Meanwhile, on the same day, Greenpeace tried to widen the existing split within the Business Council of Australia over the Kyoto Protocol….

SYDNEY, Feb 17, AAP – One of Australia’s big four banks has indicated its support for an international treaty to cut greenhouse gases.

Greenpeace today said initial findings of its survey of Business Council of Australia (BCA) members revealed Westpac supported the aims and objectives of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol

AAP. 2003. Westpac supports Kyoto Protocol – Greenpeace. Australian Associated Press Financial News Wire, 17 Feb

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

John Howard was cuddling up to George Bush on everything – the attack on Iraq, trashing climate diplomacy, you name it.  Carr was busy still trying to turn New South Wales into some sort of exemplar, at least for carbon trading (thus the report and the Gore-schmoozing).

Meanwhile, Greenpeace was having to do WWF’s job of splitting the business sector, because WWF was being very friendly with Howard (though to be fair, later in 2003, WWF tried to grow a pair. Sort of).

What I think we can learn from this

Finding/enlarging splits between government and business and splitting apart the (usually superficial) unity of business is something that NGOs can be good at.  Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation kept at it, and it sort of bore fruit in 2006. Strange fruit, but fruit. Sort of (no, not really, but what are you going to do?)

What happened next

Howard never signed up for Kyoto, to his cost in 2007

Various “pro”-climate business groupings have come and gone since 2003.  Lots of warm words, not much else, though they would all dispute that, naturally.

Carr stopped being Premier in 2005, and later served as Julia Gillard’s Foreign Affairs Minister

And we all lived hotly ever after, until we didn’t.

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

Categories
Carbon Pricing United States of America

January 16, 2003 – Chicago Climate Exchange names founding members

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 16 2003, a “milestone” was reached. Oh yes.

CHICAGO, IL – Efforts to develop market-based solutions to global warming reach a milestone today as leading U.S. and international companies and the City of Chicago announce they will be the Founding Members of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX®), a voluntary cap-and-trade program for reducing and trading greenhouse gas emissions. In an unprecedented voluntary action, these entities have made a legally binding commitment to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by four percent below the average of their 1998-2001 baseline by 2006, the last year of the pilot program.

Anon. 2003. Chicago Climate Exchange Names Founding Members. Business Wire, 16 January.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that a bunch of people thought – or chose to pretend they thought – that we could trade our way out of trouble, and that those who were early and/or quick could make a killing, and be doing well by doing good.

Carbon trading as a substitute for actual action… Because, you know, it would be cheaper that way…

What I think we can learn from this

That trading schemes are going to cause a feeding frenzy for banks and legal consultancies, and keen-to-burnish-image customer-facing businesses. Smart people take a breath and try to separate the hype and froth from what is actually being proposed.

What happened next

Turns out it didn’t work.

“CCX ceased trading carbon credits at the end of 2010 due to inactivity in the U.S. carbon markets,” (wikipedia)

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

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage technosalvationism United States of America

January 8, 2003 –  Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 8, 2003, the US business press reports on what we now call “carbon capture and storage”

“A potential solution to global warming could lie two miles deep, both underground and in the ocean.”

Global warming has been linked to emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the by-product of burning fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. So, some scientists are examining ways to curb the gaseous emissions: burying them underground or injecting them into the ocean.

The technology, known as carbon sequestration, is used by energy firms as an oil-recovery tool.

But in recent years, the Department of Energy has broadened its research into sequestration as a way to reduce emissions. And the energy industry has taken early steps toward using sequestration to capture emissions from power plants.

Even some environmentalists support carbon sequestration, although they generally object to the ocean-storage method. Partly because of environmental concerns about the ocean, government researchers are leaning toward underground storage as a preferred procedure.

Loftus, P. 2003. Energy Firms Bury Carbon Emissions. Wall Street Journal, 8 January.

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

The context was that US President Bush, shortly after being awarded the Presidency by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, had reneged on a campaign promise to regulate carbon emissions and then pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol process (not that the US had ever been likely to ratify!).  Therefore he had need of technofixes so that people who wanted/needed to believe him but who also needed to pretend (including to themselves) that they cared about climate action, could sleep at night.

The whole CCS caravan was beginning to move – there had been a meeting in Regina, Canada in November 2002, and the IPCC was about to start ball rolling on its CCS special report. 

What I think we can learn from this

Stories of techno-salvation are very very important. They will have a lot of friends, a lot of inertia.  Turning those stories into reality, or exposing those stories is trickier, however. 

What happened next

Dumping carbon dioxide in the deep oceans is now legally a no-no. London Protocol etc.  Actual working CCS that doesn’t involve enhanced oil recovery? Still waiting…

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