Twenty years ago today, on June 24, 2004, the whole “ESG” caravan got its wheels…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context is that climate change was not going away. In 2000 the Global Compact had been set up (blue-washing, much?). The Climate Group had launched, there were various UN initiatives going on…
What we learn is that this “ESG” stuff goes back 20 years.
What happened next. ESG becomes a cottage industry. Then a huge factory. And the emissions – you have to ask? – they keep 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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, May 24th, 2004, a retread disaster film (with climate change substituted for nuclear war) hit the screens, launched in New York.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Hollywood does love a good Disaster Movie. Especially if it can save on script by substituting some CGI and basically recycling a nuclear war survivalist thing. And that’s what the Day After Tomorrow really is with an amusingly cast guy who’s a lookalike for then vice president (or actual president). Dick Cheney. Dennis Quaid as the sexy scientist hero, it might be fun to watch it again actually. There’s also the Statue of Liberty thing which is a call back to plan as of the eighth we do like a good catastrophe, don’t we? Netflix and chiliastic…
What we learn is that there are a finite number of narratives and we just like recycling them and repurposing them. That’s not so bad. You know, Shakespeare did it. No one goes to Shakespeare for originality of plot. It’s all in the execution. A bit like policy. It’s all about the implementation.
What happened next? Activists tried to use the film as a rallying or recruiting point without much success. That’s not how Hollywood films work really. Or activism for that matter. The film did not trouble the Academy Awards particularly. But it was never designed to. It was designed to make money and it did make money.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, March 24th, 2004, all that nonsense about “clean coal” got a boost.
LAST Wednesday Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane launched COAL21, a plan of action aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions arising from the use of coal in electricity generation.
O’Neill, M. (2004) Coal industry’s plans to clean up its act should not be lightly dismissed .Canberra Times, March 30.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Liberal Prime Minister John Howard had pulled Australia out of the Kyoto negotiations in 2002. And therefore, technology-centric so-called solutions, such as CCS were flavour of the month. There was an Energy White Paper on the way. And it was a battle between fossil fuels and renewables. Things like Coal21 provide nice talking points, and sources of sound bites and images for supporters of the status quo to pretend matters are in hand.
What we learn is that much of what seems to be the official government policy aimed at making everyone’s lives better, especially Vorsprung durch Technik, is in fact, short-term PR stunts, where it really doesn’t matter if it comes off or not. It only has to last until slightly beyond the next election. And as long as it’s all plausibly deniable, then the politicians and funders are largely happy.
What happened next
Coal21 had some conferences. And then various projects were announced and didn’t eventuate or were failures even under their own terms – looking at you Gorgon. But that’s okay because their success or failure in the real world was kind of irrelevant. They were there primarily to support the continued existence of the fossil fuel industry.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2014, the wheels on the bus went round and round…
‘CARBON BUS’ NORTHERN TOUR 17-20 MARCH 2014
Eleven lucky applicants participated in the tour, which left from Townsville QLD and visited the Lansdown Research Station, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, ‘Wambiana’ Station and the Wambiana Research Site. Participants heard from leading specialists in climate science and agriculture and practising agriculturalists, including:
Professor Snow Barlow, University of Melbourne
Dr Ed Charmley, CSIRO
Dr Chris Stokes, CSIRO
Dr Steven Bray, QLD DAFF
Peter O’Reagain, QLD DAFF
Andrew Ash, QLD DAFF
Geoff Dickinson, QLD DPI
Roger Landsberg, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, Charters Towers
John Lyons and Michelle Lyons, ‘Wambiana’ Station, Charters Towers
The tour was enlightening and beneficial for all participants, but you don’t need to take our word for it, click here to hear from them direct…or watch the Virtual Tour video to see the tour highlights.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399.9ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Prime Minister Tony Abbott had recently abolished – or was in the process of abolishing – the emissions trading scheme that Julia Gillard had shepherded through parliament in 2011. And climate activists were at a low ebb, and understood that they really had to go out and engage people who didn’t “get” to the climate issue. The trouble is that these sorts of tours from the south, to educate the benighted, ignorant, rural savages don’t work. Now, for the avoidance of any doubt. I’m sure that that’s not what the organisers of this carbon bus tour thought or felt on any level: but it’s easy for their good intentions to be painted.as such. I don’t have a solution. I suppose the climate education has to come from within these communities, from people who are trusted? Who those people are and how they might be supported, is beyond me. I guess. There’s always the internet….
What happened next? Well, the most infamous example of all this is the 2018 tour of Queensland by a whole bunch of greenies who thought that they were helping Bill Shorten get elected, and most definitely were not. This was something that was curiously absent from the Bob Brown hagiography about the tall giants or whatever it’s called. (see film review 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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that, in the run up to Kyoto, John Howard had made a series of seemingly significant promises to deflect from the fact that he was extorting a criminally generous deal for Australia. One of those promises was a 2% renewables target for Australia’s electricity. Another was the creation of a so-called “Australian Greenhouse Office.” It had been slow to be set up, and how it had basically ignored it. It was a decaying and wilting fig leaf. And the Australian National Audit Office didn’t hold back in saying so.
What I think we can learn from this is that creation of these impressive sounding bodies is a time-honoured tactic, especially among right-wingers because it gives liberals a sand pit to play in. And people who are naive about how states operate can be momentarily or permanently fooled, simply because there is now some new bureaucratic outfit. This is not to say all bureaucratic outfits are useless all the time. Only that they have the potential to be so…
What happened next the AGO was basically abandoned.
Howard kept being a complete douche until he was forced in late 2006 to be a slightly more conniving douche: he set up the Shergold group to look at emissions reductions, but by that stage, nobody believed him and his days were numbered.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that, in the run up to Kyoto, John Howard had made a series of seemingly significant promises to deflect from the fact that he was extorting a criminally generous deal for Australia. One of those promises was a 2% renewables target for Australia’s electricity. Another was the creation of a so-called “Australian Greenhouse Office.” It had been slow to be set up, and how it had basically ignored it. It was a decaying and wilting fig leaf. And the Australian National Audit Office didn’t hold back in saying so.
What I think we can learn from this is that creation of these impressive sounding bodies is a time-honoured tactic, especially among right-wingers because it gives liberals a sand pit to play in. And people who are naive about how states operate can be momentarily or permanently fooled, simply because there is now some new bureaucratic outfit. This is not to say all bureaucratic outfits are useless all the time. Only that they have the potential to be so…
What happened next the AGO was basically abandoned.
Howard kept being a complete douche until he was forced in late 2006 to be a slightly more conniving douche: he set up the Shergold group to look at emissions reductions, but by that stage, nobody believed him and his days were numbered.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, February 18th, 2004, some scientists tried to expose the George W Bush (actually Cheney) Administration for what it was.
“Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”- Statement to Bush from 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers
http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/1.html
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Bush had pulled out of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol, had called for the NAS to do a study and then ignored that study. And was generally being George Bush, aka Dick Cheney’s glove pocket.
What we learn is that National Academy of Sciences sounds prestigious and powerful, but it has very limited power. They’ve been aware of the potential for climate change since well, at least 1957 when they produced booklets as part of the International Geophysical Year that pointed to it as a possibility. Then lots of research in the 1970s and 1980s… Pleaded with Dubya’s dad, to little (no?) effect. (see January 5,1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.)
What happened next, Bush won the 2004 election and we had another four years of denial, obfuscation, outright stupidity. It is what it is.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, February 17th, 2004, CCS hype really got going.
JUDGING by the heavy hitters attending a conference on the Gold Coast this week, geosequestration is about to get a substantial workover in Australia in the next few years.
Geosequestration is the capture of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and placing them underground. To some environmentalists the concept is about as popular as toxic waste.
For Australia’s biggest export industry, coal, geosequestration may be the difference between death and survival.
Wilson, N. 2004 Turning coal clean and green. The Australian, February 21
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that from about 1999/2000 oil and gas companies and their crumb maidens had started being enthusiastic about technology, especially carbon capture and storage as a way of legitimising the ongoing digging up transporting, selling and burning of thermal coal. This was especially important for Queensland and New South Wales (Victoria’s brown coal is unexportable).
What we learn is that you can wave a new technology, however implausible under people’s noses, and they’ll come trotting, squealing with delight, thinking that there’ll be another trough for them to stick their snouts in. The song remains the same.
What happened next, the promises around CCS kept going until 2009/10. Reality intervened, physics intervened, economics intervened. The whole promise thing went away again. And then came back 10 years later, because, well… what else has the fossil fuel industry got?
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, January 29th 2004 the author of The Greenhouse Trap, John Daly died of a heart attack.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that John Daly had been spewing nonsense and bullshit about climate change for 15 years. He had written a book called “The Greenhouse Trap”, also known as “the greenhouse crap”. And I know you’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead – I’m sure he was lovely to dogs and children – but people like Daly are a small part of why we as a species, and as Australians, have failed to take action. Only a small part but “which side are you on boys? Which side are you on?” Well, we know and I hope he’s having a nice afterlife.
What happened next? Denial continued because it is too painful for some people not to hide within.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, January 13th, 2004, NSW was trying to get an Australia-wide emissions trading scheme going, since John Howard wouldn’t…
NSW is keen to enlist the support of the other states for a national greenhouse emissions trading scheme, but analysts are divided on whether it would work. The Premier, Bob Carr, yesterday labelled as scandalous the Federal Government’s decision to abandon carbon trading as one way of reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions. Mr Carr, who is in favour of Australia ratifying the Kyoto protocol on climate change, wants the states to establish an alternative emissions trading scheme.
New South Wales Premier Bob Carr says the Federal Government is “in denial” about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Government has decided to stop work on a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, saying it offers little incentive for business. The scheme is linked to the Kyoto protocol, which the Australian Government has not signed. But Mr Carr says the Federal Government’s move has potentially cost jobs for Australians involved in the emissions trading industry. “We’ve got an opportunity to benefit – Australia can benefit from emissions trading and the Federal Government is pulling out of this,” Mr Carr said. “Whether they sign up to Kyoto or they don’t, there’s a case for emissions trading and Australia can only benefit from being part of an emissions trading system.”
Peatling, S. and Pearlman, J. 2004. Carr rallies states for onslaught on emissions. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 January. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073877762902.html
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that personally Bob Carr had been aware of the climate issue since 1971. And as premier of New South Wales since 1995 he’d been trying to turn New South Wales into a carbon trader or place where the Japanese could buy some trees to offset their emissions. More broadly, he’d been campaigning for emissions trading schemes. There had been two attempts to get a national federal Emissions Trading Scheme through John Howard’s cabinet. One had been defeated in August of 2000. And another had been defeated in August 2003, at which point Carr presumably said to himself, “sod this for a game of soldiers. Let’s do it ourselves”. This was made easier by the fact that most of the states were at that time under ALP control.
What we learn from this is that policies that are perceived as good ideas (and emissions trading is, after all, perceived as a good idea) are hard to kill. I mean, fair play to him, Tony Abbott finally succeeded in the period 2010 to 14, but before then, emissions trading was like this vampire policy, you just could not kill it off.
What happened next? The states kept talking about it. Finally, in the beginning of 2007, Kevin Rudd as opposition leader started promising an emissions trading scheme. And well, the rest is history.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422 ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Bush had been doing sweet FA. And he had had the British scientist Robert Watson removed as chair of the IPCC – it’s hard to play Athens to their Sparta when they won’t even give you a bow….
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had been making the right noises about climate change but doing sweet FA, it was obvious that there was failure baked into the Kyoto process, which many at this point time were thinking was just dead. And that UNFCCC might be dead. And therefore emissions reductions were dead. China was galloping forward with its emissions, the US was not cutting it. And therefore, of course, you’re gonna speak out of school and hope for technofixes.
What we learn is that chief scientific advisors can, on occasion, be troublesome priests. They tend to denounce someone over the water or across the border, rather than their own bosses. And when they are fed up with their own bosses, well, it’s more likely that they’ll quit and keep tight lips. For example, the Australian CSA Penny Sackett in February 2011.
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.
