Tag: 2004

Categories
Australia

March 4, 2004 – The Australian National Audit Office skewers the Australian Greenhouse Office

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 5th, 2004, a watchdog body said “what is the MATTER with you people?” to the Australian Greenhouse Office.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/the-administration-major-programs

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 4, 1998 – The Australian Greenhouse Office gets a boss…

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

March 4, 2023 –Letter in FT: Global carbon price call is a classic delaying tactic

March 4, 2003 – Republicans urged to question the scientific consensus…

March 4, 2004 – The Australian National Audit Office skewers the Australian Greenhouse Office

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 5th, 2004, a watchdogo body said “what is the MATTER with you people?” to the Australian Greenhouse Office.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/the-administration-major-programs

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.

Also on this day: 

March 4, 1998 – The Australian Greenhouse Office gets a boss…

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

March 4, 2023 –Letter in FT: Global carbon price call is a classic delaying tactic

March 4, 2003 – Republicans urged to question the scientific consensus…

Categories
Denial Science

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

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.

Also on this day: 

Feb 18, 1978 – “#Climate Experts see a Warming Trend”

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

Feb 17, 2004 – Zero Emissions Technology Conference in Australia. At peak excitement of tech solutions

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 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media/pressrel/0ROB6%22

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.

Also on this day: 

February 17, 1993 – President Clinton proposes an Energy Tax.

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

Feb 17, 2013 – Scientists, activists, actors, arrested outside Whitehouse, protesting #Keystone

February 17, 2013 – celebrities arrested at Whitehouse, protesting Keystone XL

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial

January 29, 2004 – John Daly, Australian skeptic, dies

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.

Also on this day: 

January 29, 2001 – President Bush announces “energy taskforce” #TaskforceAnnouncementGrift

January 29, 2006 – Attempts to gag James Hansen revealed

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 13, 2004 – Bob Carr rallies states for emissions trading

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.

Also on this day: 

January 13, 2005- UN Secretary-General calls for “decisive measures” on climate change

January 13, 2021 – New Scientist reports on types of intelligence required to deal with #climate change   

Categories
Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 9, 2004 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor lays into President over climate inaction

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 9th 2004, the UK Chief Scientific Advisor, David King lays into Bush Administration on climate inaction

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm

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 happened next, King kept being Chief Scientific Adviser until 2007. Most notably, in 2023. Sir David King signed the letter in the aftermath of the acquittal of the Barclays nine, and is also being cited by Just Stop Oil in their standard powerpoint deck.

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 9, 1974 – The UK sets up a “Department of Energy”

Jan 9 1995 – “Efficiency” promises vs hated and feared regulation/taxation #Predatory Delay #auspol

Categories
Scientists technosalvationism United Kingdom

January 7, 2004 – geoengineering our way outa trouble?

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 7th, 2004,

Big ideas for reducing the impacts of climate change are being evaluated by an international line-up of leading scientists from the US, mainland Europe and the UK at a symposium in Cambridge this week. The meeting is being jointly hosted by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Cambridge-MIT Institute. The scientists are coming together to evaluate which large-scale bio-engineering, geo-engineering and chemical engineering ideas to combat global warming are worthy of further investigation, and which are best left on the drawing board. The symposium, called “Macro-engineering options for climate change management and mitigation” is at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge from 7-9 January.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/planet-sized-solutions-for-global-warming

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 the IPCC Third Assessment Report had come out and the UK energy white paper had come out in February 2003 positing a 60% cut in emissions by 2050, and it was obvious that some big technological efforts were going to be required. The international negotiations were adrift with the Americans having pulled out of Kyoto, followed by the Australians. The IPCC was in the midst of writing its special report on CCS. So of course, a bunch of well-respected, high-powered, academics would get together and … spit ball about technological fantasies to save the world. 

What we can learn from this is that to really understand what’s going on, you do have to understand the context of what had gone before. And place yourself in the heads of organisers or speakers, without giving yourself information that they couldn’t have had, because the events hadn’t happened yet. 

What else can we can learn is that rather than criticise existing political and social arrangements, high-powered academics who are ultimately benefiting from existing social and political arrangements will dream up techno-fantasies, because to question the entire system would be to question their place in it, and no one gets career points for that. 

What happened next? The techno-fantasies started coming thicker and faster, and they’re with us now, 20 years later in full flight. Because we did nowt, boys and girls, about dealing with the social and political issues. 

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: 

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results 

Jan 7, 2013

Categories
Australia

December 16, 2004 – “2 degrees of warming to be a catastrophe”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, December 16, 2004, we got another warning.

SCIENTISTS have warned of the catastrophic consequences of a 2C rise in global temperatures.

They say it could threaten Latin American water supplies, cut food yields in Asia and lead to a rise in extreme weather in the Caribbean.

The warnings were issued in a report led by a group of European scientists and presented at a UN conference on climate change. It was released as delegates from almost 200 nations refined details of the Kyoto Protocol, a global warming treaty, to be implemented in February.

Hobart Mercury (2004) Just 2C could ruin us Hobart Mercury 16th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the 2000s scientists became more certain and more desperate about the impacts of a rapidly warming world. And some newspapers would pick up on this periodically, although the Hobart Mercury is part of Murdoch’s stable, it for whatever reason had always had slightly more independence (being, I think, the only Murdoch paper that did not support the Iraq War).

What I think we can learn from this

We have known exactly what was coming for us, and we have not acted. Of course unpacking that “we” is crucial. It mostly means our lords and masters…

What happened next

We did not act on this warning and all the other warnings that have come since. There is also such a thing as “too late.”

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

October 29, 2004 – Aussie environmentalists win a court case…

Nineteen years ago, on this day, October 29, 2004, activists in Victoria won a legal battle about a filthy coal-fired power station.

Justice Stuart Morris delivered his judgement to a packed courtroom on 29 October 2004, ruling squarely in favour of the environmentalists. On one level, the decision is a straightforward administrative law judgment about a Minister overreaching her statutory powers. Yet in reaching the conclusion on this procedural point, Justice Morris had occasion to consider for the first time under Australian law the relevance of indirect greenhouse gas emissions of a major development.

(Berger, 2007: 166)

Quinn saved his most vicious attack for the environment movement. In an internal note to Hazelwood employees issued on the day of the decision [29 October 2004]

Extreme environmental groups who are hell bent on closing our industry obviously have a right to a say in our democracy, but these delaying tactics by such lobbying groups should never be allowed to frustrate legitimate critically important state energy projects… We have spent over $400 million on environmental and operational efficiencies since 1996, and it is about time that commitment was recognised by these groups. Their views are anti-coal, anti-business and anti-jobs, and if they succeed, they will cost thousands of local jobs with their narrow and simplistic arguments.

(Berger, 2007: 167)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that pro-life pro-sanity campaigners had been doing legal stuff around trying to get Hazelwood shut down. For yonks. There was a court case and they won. In the short term, at least. 

What I think we can learn from this

The legal venues are one way forward, but by no means the only one. And any legal victory is only worth what happens next. (This is something that I first encountered as an idea while paying attention to the McLibel Trial and having this pointed out to me by Dave Morris.)

“They make the laws to chain as well.” 

“I fought the law and the law won. “

“This isn’t a Court of Justice son. This is a court of law. “

Ah the songs.

What happened next

Greenpeace started to do direct action around Hazelwood in 2005.

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

December 28, 1994 – Australian Financial Review says “say yes to Tradeable Emissions Quotas”

On this day, December 28 in 1994 the Australian Financial Review (“the Fin” – and on its best days merely a poundstore version of the Financial Times) had an editorial about the value of emissions trading schemes.

A very large part of the contribution of rich, energy-intensive economies such as Australia should be the financing of emission-reduction projects in countries where the social cost of emission reduction is lower.

One mechanism for this kind of transfer is the often proposed system of tradable emission quotas (which the quotas distributed in a way to transfer income to the developing nations).”

Anon, 1994, 28 December

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 359ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The Labor Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner was trying to get a carbon tax proposal through into the next budget. There was a major effort to stop this, and the Fin’s editorial was a minor part of it (“look, there’s a more efficient way of pricing carbon”).

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, in the big picture. Just be aware that whatever you propose, if the rich and powerful don’t like it they will either oppose it outright or – more subtle version – go for a concern troll approach “we both want the same thing, but HERE’s how you should do it…[proposes something that will never work].”

What happened next?

The carbon tax died in February 1995, didn’t get in the budget. Emissions trading became flavour of the month for more than a decade.  Delivered nowt, except fat fees to consultants and bankers. (You can argue about the reduction in emissions after Gillard’s scheme came in, and others will point to Tasmanian hydro entering the picture.)