Tag: 2005

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

December 6, 2005 – James Hansen speech about imminent tipping points, at AGU

Twenty years ago, on this day,

“On 6 December 2005, in a presentation to the American Geophysical Union (AGU), James Hansen stated that, “we are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption” (Hansen, 2005, p. 8). Hansen’s warning helped initiate a tipping point trend in climate change communication that was quickly reflected in public debate. These warnings were front page news by January 2006, with The Washington Post reporting that, “[t]his ‘tipping point’ scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad…” (Eilperin, 2006, p. A01).”

The tipping point trend in climate change communication – ScienceDirect

See also Bowen Censoring Science 1 to 6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 James Hansen had been getting in trouble with asshole Republican administrations since 1981, when a front page story on the New York Times had led to a research grant already given being withdrawn and people losing their jobs. The George HW Bush administration had also tried to sideline/silence Hansen in the key period 1989-1992. And on and on it went.

The specific context was HW’s dumb son, “Dubya” was nominally President, but you gotta assume a lot of the direction was coming from Dick Cheney. By this time the US was having to contend with the fact that the UN process, which it thought it had rendered pointless by withdrawing from Kyoto negotiations, was “back on track” (it’s all relative) and there would be more fights to come about this.

What I think we can learn from this – Hansen is worth listening to. It’s scary af.

What happened next – Hansen took (enforced) retirement. GISS got slaughtered in 2025. The emissions kept climbing, and the Republicans stopped pretending to be anything other than devastation-bots.

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: 

December 6, 2005 – CCS is our only hope, says Chief Scientist….

December 6, 2006- Turns out 0.1% of a Very BIG NUMBER is … quite a lot…

December 6, 2018 – Macron scraps a fuel tax because of protests – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Norway United Kingdom

November 30, 2005 – a “North Sea Basin Task Force” is formed

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 31st, 2005,

On 30 November 2005, Minister Enoksen of Norway and Minister Wicks of the UK agreed to establish a North Sea Basin Task Force, composed of public and private bodies from countries on the rim of the North Sea. Its purpose: to develop common principles for managing and regulating the transport, injection and permanent storage of CO2 in the North Sea sub-seabed. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/oed/pdf_filer/rapporter/north-sea-basin-report-final.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 North Sea had been an economic bonanza for both countries (only one of which had bothered to set up a sovereign wealth fund).

The specific context was – there was increased interest in CCS, and depleted North Sea oil fields seemed like a good idea…

What I think we can learn from this – we have been hoping for technofixes for a long time.

What happened next – the CCS bubble burst in 2011, and again in 2015, but thanks to astonishing lobbying, it’s back on the agenda, and is getting LOADS of 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.

Also on this day: 

November 30, 1978 – House of Lords debate on Atmospheric Changes…

November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue” 

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

November 30, 2014 – US TV show The Newsroom tackles climate change

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage IPCC

September 22, 2005 – IPCC CCS special report

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 23rd, 2005, 

IPCC report on Carbon Capture and Storage 22-24 September 2005

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 from the late 1990s CCS had come onto the radar of policymakers, since if the Kyoto Protocol were to come into force, then rich nations would have to reduce emissions. CCS might, they thought, be a convenient (if not cheap) way of meeting these obligations.

The specific context was that pro-CCS scientists and technologists had lobbied successfully for the IPCC to produce one of its “Special Reports.”

What I think we can learn from this – every new technology, even (especially the Unicorntech) needs big fat reports with hundreds of footnotes to make it seem real and safe.

What happened next – CCS has been through repeated hype cycles.  God help us all.

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: 

September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

September 22, 2014 – “We Mean Business” coalition formed 

Categories
Australia South Paciific

September 15, 2005 – “A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees launched by FOE Australia”

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 15th, 2005,

Friends of the Earth Australia: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees – “While the Earth has always endured natural climate change variability, we are now facing the possibility of irreversible climate change in the near future. The increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere from industrial processes has enhanced the natural greenhouse effect.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 the issue of climate refugees rocking up in Australia was not new – James Burke had talked about it in his 1989 documentary “After the Warming.”

The specific context was that Friends of the Earth battles on, trying to get people to think about the uncomfortable issues.  2005 was before the ‘great awakening of late 2006-2007’ and it must have seemed pretty futile, but they persisted.

What I think we can learn from this: You have to keep saying the truth.  Hardly anyone listens, but wasn’t it ever thus?

What happened next

Anthony Albanaese started wanging on about climate refugees in late 2006, as a way of cornering John Howard  (see my October last year stuff).

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: 

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra

September 15, 1982/1990 – “Environmental Justice” is born. And so is Captain Planet…

September 15, 1996 – A CCS posterchild is born: Sleipner Field comes online. – All Our Yesterdays

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…

Categories
Australia

August 11, 2005 – Bob Brown in the Senate

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 11th, 2005, Bob Brown, a man of undoubted physical and moral courage, said the following in the Australian Senate,

The motion calls on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to explain to the Senate his denial in the Federal Court that global warming exists and that the burning of coal contributes to global warming. He did not do that in his 20-minute speech to the Senate. It was his opportunity. The debate could have been concluded and we could be discussing other things, but he steered totally away from that because there is no way that he can answer his duplicity on the matter. There is no way that he can answer the double standards being exhibited as he tries to do the impossible—firstly, address climate change and, secondly, deny it.

Just yesterday in the Senate, in answer to a dorothy dixer on climate change from Senator Adams, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said:

… climate change is already affecting the climate in Western Australia, with quite significant reductions in rainfall in the south-west affecting farm production. It shows all of us in Australia just how important saving the climate is, just how important addressing climate change is and how important it is not only to mix substantial domestic policies to address this within Australia’s borders but to work steadfastly internationally to ensure that we have policies that work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions …

And

The extraordinary thing about the Australian newspaper’s page 7 story today, headed ‘Canberra in denial over greenhouse’, is that right next to it is an advertisement from Energy Australia. It has a little heading up the top, over a picture of a sprig growing out of a power pole, saying, ‘Nature-friendly power.’ This is one of the nation’s biggest energy providers, from the state—the coal state, if you like—of New South Wales. The first two sentences say:

It’s time to make the switch. Traditional coal-fired electricity produces large amounts of greenhouse gases, which cost our environment dearly.

How can we have everybody agreeing that that is a fact but the minister going into court and denying it? It is Alice in Wonderland; it is a total absurdity. It would be laughable were it not so serious.

ParlInfo – GLOBAL WARMING 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 the Greens had formed nationally when it was obvious that it was a waste of time and energy – and opportunity – expecting the Labor Party (social democratic at its very best) to be anything more than a meat puppet for corporate interests, especially extractive ones (forestry, mining etc). They’d finally set up in the early 1990s, and Bob Brown was a key player in this.

The specific context was that Brown was protesting the utter criminal uselessness of the Howard government, which was resolutely trying to avoid doing ANYTHING that would inconvenience its fossil fuel mates.

What I think we can learn from this – Brown has behaved with honour, dignity, intelligence and courage. You can’t say that about many recent Labor sorts (Tom Uren gets a pass, obvs, Moss Cass, and a few others). Gillard on a very generous reading gets a “C+” on climate, which is better than Rudd, Keating etc. 

What happened next Brown stuck around and was instrumental in shepherding through the first carbon pricing scheme in Australia in 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.

Also on this day: 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut) – All Our Yesterdays

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe”

Categories
Australia

July 30, 2005 – John Howard versus the climate

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 30th, 2005, an article about just how much influence the fossil fuel lobby had on Australian energy and climate policy making appeared in the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.

“This week John Howard committed Australia to an American-led climate pact that groups the major greenhouse gas producers and aims to develop technological methods to minimise the detrimental side-effects of using coal to create energy. Today Richard Baker discloses how big industry exercised its influence to torpedo the Kyoto protocols.

“Australia’s former chief climate change official has accused the Federal Government of allowing the fossil fuel, energy and mining industries too much influence over its policies – including its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

“Gwen Andrews, former chief executive of the Australian Greenhouse Office, told The Age she was never asked to brief Prime Minister John Howard on climate change during her four years in the role, at a time when Mr Howard was deliberating whether to ratify Kyoto.

“This week Australia confirmed its involvement in a US-led Asia-Pacific coalition to tackle climate change which rejects the Kyoto protocol and instead focuses on technology to make fossil fuels cleaner rather than restricting emissions from industry. China, India, South Korea and Japan are also involved.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-big-energy-won-the-climate-battle/2005/07/29/1122144020224.html and

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/industrys-hand-guides-climate-plan/2005/07/29/1122144024576.html?from=moreStories

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 the Australian political elite had decided reducing Australian domestic emissions was too much like hard work and would piss off their rich business mates by the early 1990s. Everything since then had been hand-wringing (Labor) or brazen “we don’t give a damn” (Liberal and National Party).

The specific context was the Howard government had set up an “Australian Greenhouse Office” in 1998, but had lacked interest in continuing the pretence, and abolished it – having achieved nothing, which was what Howard wanted – in 2004 or so.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is all kayfabe, all pretend. There are all sorts of pretend organisations, either there to spoil other efforts or give the impression that Something Is Being Done.

What happened next is that the following year, from about September, Howard’s terrible climate record finally began to catch up with him. But Labor were only very very marginally better, and only for a short while. Oh well.

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 30, 1968 – the UN says yes to an environment conference

July 30, 1979 – scientists warn US Senators about synfuels and carbon dioxide build-up

July 30, 1989 – UK Conservative politician warns “we have at most 25 years to take action.”

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 28, 2005 – AP6 announced

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 28th, 2005 a bullshit “spoiler organisation” the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) designed to undermine the Kyoto Protocol, which neither Australia nor the US had ratified, was launched.

“The partnership announced itself while tepidly pledging not to undermine the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the treaty to limit global greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto’s supporters clothed their contempt for the new partnership in condescension.

The birth notice of the partnership was a terse statement issued from the White House by US President George W. Bush a few hours before the press conference in Vientiane on July 28, 2005. With paternity clearly established, the US stepped back and allowed Australia’s foreign minister to chair the announcement.”

Dobell – https://griffithreview.com/articles/the-gang-of-six-lost-in-kyotoland/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was holed below the waterline before it even left port, thanks to the resistance of the United States to targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations going in the treaty text. The Kyoto Protocol had been an attempt to patch the hole in the hull.

The specific context was that the US had pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto in March 2001, with Australia following in June 2002. But Kyoto had, eventually, become international law in February 2005, thanks to Russia ratifying for a) the shiggles and b) WTO membership (a tacit quid pro quo). So President Bush and Australian Prime Minister little Johnie Howard wanted a “technology-led” spoiler organisation so they could distract from their rampant vandalism, and give possibly worried “conservatives” something to point to, a talking point.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a massive effort to manage Joe and Jane Publics anxieties. If their glorious leaders are assholes (i.e. all the time), then there has to be some way of not seeing what is obvious. Most of that is supplied by the normal bias in the media, but sometimes a spoiler proposal is called for.

NB Nothing here should be read as an endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, which was criminally inadequate.

What happened next – the AP6 died, and was not mourned. Other spoiler organisations were formed. Grand sounding but just as empty. And the emissions kept 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.

References

Jeffrey Mcgee & Ros Taplin 2006. The Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: A complement or competitor to the Kyoto protocol? Global Change, Peace & Security, Volume 18, 3,  173-192  https://doi.org/10.1080/14781150600960230

Also on this day: 

July 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

July 28, 1990 – American #climate denial comes to London

July 28, 2003 – James Inhofe shares his genius

Categories
Scientists United States of America

June 20, 2005 – RIP Charles Keeling

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 20th, Charles Keeling (known as Dave) died.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Keeling had first measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for a Californian body funded by oil companies (see the great work of Rebecca John). He’d then done it for Roger Revelle as part of the International Geophysical Year. He spent the rest of his life measuring CO2 and warning people about the implications of the build-up.

See 1969 speech- April 25, 1969 –  Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?” – All Our Yesterdays

What I think we can learn from this – the scientists did their job.  The media, the politicians, the “leaders” of social movement organisations?  Not so much.

What happened next – the emissions have kept on climbing, of course. 

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: 

June 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax  – All Our Yesterdays

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Business Responses United Kingdom

June 9, 2005 – Capitalism asks G8 leaders to save the world

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 9th, 2005, 24 companies say they would quite like to governments save the world (so they can continue making money),

24 large multinationals, including U.S. firms Hewlett-Packard and Ford, issued a statement in which they supported climate change measures, and pressured the G8 to adopt climate stabilization targets and set up a long-term, global climate change regime that would extend to 2030 at least, including a market-based system of emissions trading (World Economic Forum, 2005).

(Kolk and Pinkse, 2007:202)

Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. 2007. Multinationals’ Political Activities on Climate Change. Business & Society Vol. 46, (2),  pp.201-228.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that

a) The G7 had first mentioned carbon dioxide build-up at its 1979 meeting in Tokyo, and then again in 1985 in Bonn. b) Business had pushed hard against any climate action in 1990-1 and now, fifteen years later, some of them were having a few second thoughts.

The specific context was that there was now an EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol were about to begin. But the major stumbling block was President Cheney. Sorry, “Bush.”

Prime Minister Tony Blair, hosting the G8 and keen for discussion to be Anything But Iraq, will have welcomed this. And his consiglieres may well have had a hand in making it happen – it’s a very Blair-ite stunt.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – we like to believe we are the good guys. It ain’t necessarily so.

As “active citizens” – business will always do this – deny costs, squeal about action, then demand someone else do something to clean up their mess.

Academics might like to ponder – their role in helping government and business versus the punters.

What happened next – more warm words (if not from the Cheney gang).

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism Denial

June 5, 2006 – IPA sets up astroturf outfit

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 5th, the “think” tank the IPA set up a spoiler outfit, called the Australian Environment Foundation (geddit?)

2005 Australian Environment Foundation set up by IPA (see Fyfe on 8th)

 Australia’s newest environment group is ruffling feathers – but not where you would expect.

The green movement is decidedly downbeat about the weekend launch of the Australian Environment Foundation, a group whose registered place of business is the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank.

Indeed, lawyers for the Australian Conservation Foundation, the nation’s leading green group, have requested the new body stop using the title of Australian Environment Foundation as it is “deceptively similar” to its own. The public could be easily confused, executive director Don Henry said.

The group’s chairwoman is Jennifer Marohasy, director of the IPA’s environment unit. Other listed directors include mining and timber industry lobbyists and a dairy farmer. The group says it has 150 members.

Fyfe, M. 2005. Cool reception for new green group. The Age, 8 June.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Cool-reception-for-new-green-group/2005/06/07/1118123837470.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the IPA had been pushing hard against environmentalist activity for decades. It had published its first “greenhouse hoax/scare” articles in 1989, and been a key player in the denial campaigns.

The specific context was that by 2006, with increased activity in the UK, the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, private members’ bills by ALP figures (including Anthony Albanese), it was a fair bet that some sort of astroturf outfit/offshoot was going to be a good investment. The IPA was also teaming up with various American outfits to try and delegitimise NGOs, which makes its setting up of a fake one all the more entertaining.

What I think we can learn from this is that the job of the IPA and other junktanks like it is to defend the capital accumulation activities of the already rich, and they are relatively competent at that. Or at least keen.

What happened next  The AEF staggers on, not that anyone gives it any attention.

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: 

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays