Tag: 2005

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

Categories
United States of America

June 2, 2005 – Climate change will not, in fact, be Terminated

On this day June 2nd, 2005, 20 years ago California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced an initiative to curb greenhouse gas emissions in California as a step towards addressing global warming. 

In his speech, the governor declared, “The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.”

–Arnold Schwarzenegger

San Francisco, June 2, 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 for this was the US had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in early 2001, despite George W Bush’s campaign trail promise that he would regulate carbon dioxide (the real president, Dick Cheney, had other ideas).

The specific context was when the Federal government flubs an issue, various states, often including California, tries to lead – you see similar dynamics in other federal systems (Australia, Germany, whatever).

Historical context – check out the defeat of Proposition 128 – “Big Green” in November 1990.

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : PROPOSITION 128 : ‘Big Green’ Reached Too Far, Backers Say – Los Angeles Times

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – celebrity is not transferable power, necessarily.

As “active citizens” – talk is cheap

Academics might want to ponder – the way policy is, well, terminated.

What happened next: 

The emissions kept rising. The concentrations kept rising. People elected a climate denier as President. Twice. So, there’s that.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Too many to mention

References

 (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

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 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

April 5, 2005 – Clean Coal conference begins in Sydney

Exactly 20 years ago, the first “clean coal” conference began in Sydney. 

“The Australian Coal Association says advances in technology have boosted the prospects for a zero emissions power station in the New South Wales Hunter Valley in the not too distant future.

“New clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage projects will be the main topics on the agenda at this week’s inaugural COAL21 annual conference which gets under way in Sydney today.”

Conference considers clean power generation – ABC News

COAL21 – 1st COAL21 annual conference (Conference) | ETDEWEB

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had become the world’s biggest coal exporter in 1984 primarily from Queensland and New South Wales. From 1988 Australian political elites had had to pretend to give a damn about carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. There had been efforts to get a carbon pricing mechanism (first a tax and then an emissions trading scheme). All of these had come to nothing. 

Australia had pulled out of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol, despite having extorted an extremely generous reduction target, the reduction being an increase in their emissions. But nonetheless, there were presentational concerns and probably some well-meaning people within various public and private bodies who genuinely believed that clean coal could be a thing, and it’s always nice to believe technosalvationist fairytales.

What I think we can learn from this is that people believe what they need to believe. People say what they need to say, and the emissions keep climbing. 

What happened next

People said what they wanted to say, other people heard what they wanted to hear, 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.

April 5, 1971- a UK scientist explains “pollution in context”

April 5, 2008 – Charlton Heston dies, star of first movie to mention the greenhouse effect

Categories
Australia Denial

April 4 –  2005 – APEC conference at Parliament House “Managing Climate Change: Practicalities and Realities in a post-Kyoto future”. 

On this day 20 years ago, a denialist/delay-ist bunch of idiots gathered at Parliament House… The conference was sponsored by Xstrata and ExxonMobil…. (further gory details here)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto Protocol had finally come into effect thanks to the Russians saying yes in exchange for World Trade Organisation membership. This meant that formal negotiations for a “post-Kyoto” protocol/agreement would be beginning soon.

Meanwhile though, Australia and the UK were on the outer, and scrambling to come up with plausible sounding “ways forward” (mostly involving fantasy technologies. Meanwhile, the denialists were still thick … on the ground.

This event is kind of a sequel to a 1997 conference “Countdown to Kyoto”, with overlapping attendees and presenters.

What we learn Morons gonna moron.  And scumbags gonna lie (down) with morons.

What happened next The scumbaggery continued. The emissions climbed, and the consequences began to rock up. So it went.


References

Australian APEC Study Centre – SourceWatch

This from Jennifer Marohasy

Mixing Views on Climate – Jennifer Marohasy

Papers from the Managing Climate Change: Practicalities and Realities in a post-Kyoto Future conference held in Canberra on 4th April are now available at Tech Central Station.

This is perhaps a first conference where acknowledged ‘climate skeptics’ including Professor Bob Carter have given papers alongside Australian government representatives including Dr Brian Fisher from ABARE.

A delegate from the Chinese embassy spoke about the need for China to reduce its reliance on coal as an energy source and China’s intension to build possibly 6 new nuclear power stations over the next 15 years.

Senior Cliamte Negotiator from the US Department of State gave an interesting and fairly technical paper on US policy directions.

Papers also include a contribution from author of Taken by Storm and key contributor to the ‘hockey stick’ debate, Canadian Ross McKitrick.

The conference papers are supplemented with Background papers that include an analysis of global carbon trading prospects.

The “Tech Central” link takes you to this

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC Working Group Five

April 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-upApril 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Academia United Kingdom

February 1, 2005 – “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” conference begins

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 1st, 2005,

… an international conference called “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases”[17] examined the link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, and the 2 °C (3.6 °F) ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming. Previously, this had generally been accepted as being 550 ppm.[18]

The conference took place under the United Kingdom’s presidency of the G8, with the participation of around 200 ‘internationally renowned’ scientists from 30 countries. It was chaired by Dennis Tirpak and hosted by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, from 1 February to 3 February.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Symposium_on_avoiding_dangerous_climate_change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Blair, neck deep in the Iraq War and his special bromance with George  W. Bush was very keen that the G7 in Gleneagles that year not talk about said war. So there was the Make Poverty History, bullshit. (And by bullshit, I don’t mean the sincere efforts by the NGOs and individuals, I mean UK Government.)

And there was also the climate agenda, so the academic conference at Exeter University must be seen in the context of avoiding talking about Iraq. The conference was held over three days, lots of fine words, including words about carbon capture and storage. It’s not so clear to me that anyone talked about how this was already a 20 year old agenda, if you put the starting gun at Villach..

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been talking about avoiding dangerous climate change, and we haven’t. And now we are “coping” with dangerous climate change – that  would have to be the title Or “bracing for the impact of the unavoided and now unavoidable existential threat climate change.” I don’t know what you would call it. 

What happened next:  More people died in the Iraq War of choice. Blair finally went in whenever it was 2007.  And no one ever was held to account for what they did.

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 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climateFeb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker

Categories
United States of America

January 4, 2005 – Senator James Inhofe exemplifies denialist bullshit

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 4th, 2005, Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) was at it again…

To cite one of innumerable examples – provided by realclimate.org – during a speech given at the opening senate session on January 4, 2005, Inhofe said: “we are (…) in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age”, which was a reference to the novelist Michael Crichton and contradicts all published scientific papers, including the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report, which states that human activities are having a significant influence on our changing climate.

http://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/hall_of_shame

Senator Inhofe on Climate Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, after a brief period of agreement, largely that the greenhouse effect was a serious issue, the Republican Party had by the early 90s fallen largely into step with the fossil fuel and industrial interests it used to fully represent, and said that this was another liberal hoax.

You can read about the ways that the culture war started in the late Ross Gelbspan’s two books, The Heat Is On: The High Stakes Battle over Earth’s Threatened Climate, and then later The Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis–And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster

What I think we can learn from this is that old white men have a heft their words, no matter how demented are given far more credence because of their positions, often

What happened next

Inhofe kept being Inhofe, until he died in July 2024. The emissions kept climbing and in and our fate is sealed. To be honest, it was probably sealed already before 20 years ago,

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 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

January 4, 1982 – Global 2000 Report updated
Categories
Carbon Pricing Europe

January 1, 2005 – the EU Emissions Trading Scheme begins.

Twenty  years ago, on this day, January 1st, 2005, the EU launched its emissions trading scheme. It will drive down the cost of “decarbonisation” and send long and loud signals to investors, pay for carbon capture and storage and generally Save The World. Oh yes… 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the idea of emissions trading for climate had been around since the early 1990s – an analogy was drawn with sulphur dioxide trading around acid rain in the US/Canada.  But there had been a lot of skepticism about whether it would “work” – because powerful vested interests would find way to game the system, by getting exemptions, or free allocations etc, and the price signal would end up simply not being loud enough to drive change among investors, industry or consumers.  But the Americans were very keen. And see this – 

The EU ETS would likely not have come into existence without the Kyoto Protocol, but the story of that relationship contains its share of irony. Briefly, emissions trading is an American institutional innovation in environmental regulation that was forced into the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol by the United States in late 1997 in the face of strong opposition from the EU. Resistance to the concept continued until the new American president pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, after which European opposition to emissions trading faded. 

Ellerman, A. D., & Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results.

What I think we can learn from this

The defeat of the proposed European Carbon Tax in 1991-2 was the killer victory (alongside Bush versus targets and timetables for Rio).  And emissions trading schemes are a nice-to-have, at best. At worst, they are a tar pit for energy, attention and a great delaying tactic, while the consultants get rich.

What happened next

Europe’s emissions have come down a bit – if you count territorially.  If you look at consumption, and embedded carbon, maybe not quite so much…

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

Convery, F.J. Origins and Development of the EU ETS. Environ Resource Econ 43, 391–412 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9275-7

(haven’t read it yet)

Ellerman, A. D., & Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results.

Also on this day: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal

Nineteen years ago, on this day, November 14th, 2005, 10 Downing Street was blocked with coal

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the G7 meeting in Gleneagles that summer had made all sorts of nice, warm promises about climate change. But Blair’s government was still planning to give approval to more coal-fired power stations. And they were going to use carbon capture and storage as some sort of cover for that, a Get Out of Jail Free card. And so here we have Greenpeace, pointing to the reality rhetoric gap. 

What we learn is that one of the guys driving the trucks that deposited the coal was an undercover asset for the Special Branch. Oh, the irony. 

What happened next? Well, starting 2006, there were attempts to kickstart a social movement around the issue. An umbrella “Stop Climate Chaos” group had been created. And the NGOs and social movements were trying to get hold of this issue. Without success, it must be said it all died away by 2010. Everyone was exhausted and more than that, just despondent. And the emissions kept climbing. As did the atmospheric concentrations.

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 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

Categories
Australia Fossil fuels

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 5th, 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard was – this will shock you – a turd.

Howard at opening of WEC 

We are also a nation, which has been blessed by providence with very large reserves of energy. And I want to say something about the role that Australia has in mind and has executed over the years in relation to those reserves of energy. Australia is a strong and reliable supplier of energy. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal and it is a large exporter of LNG. We are very proud of the partnerships in energy that we have developed over the years with our friends and close partners in the Asian Pacific region.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Howard was now eight years into being Prime Minister. He had won all the big battles on environment, really, he had carved out a really good deal for Kyoto, and then pissed on it. He had stopped emissions trading, twice. True, he had been forced to take extra action to slow renewables, and he had even started talking about carbon capture and storage as a way to avoid any further talk of emissions reductions. 

He was surely feeling at this stage pretty damn pleased with himself, I’m quite sure. And so all of gloating at the World Energy Congress is to be expected really 

What we learn is that even when they’re supposed to maybe not boast too loud, for fear of alienating people, I guess if they know that they’re not alienating anyone important, and they’re sending a message that resonates with their core vote, then it’s okay. 

For a history of the World Energy Congress and what it was trying to achieve, see here.

What happened next Howard won the 2004 Federal election and why went on to cause more havoc and misery. And then Kevin Rudd came along and saved climate policy, Australia’s credibility and led us to the sunny upland of the land and milk and honey.  Oh yes. This definitely happened [subs please check this]. 

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, obv

Also on this day: 

 September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
United States of America

August 29, 2005 – Hurricane Katrina

Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 29th, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hits Louisiana coast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that warnings of increased intensity of hurricanes, if not their number, had been around for a while. The more local context was that the things that would protect New Orleans from a hurricane were levees and swamp lands and these were being neglected and drained because there was no money in it. And the US State was busy fighting an oil war in Iraq, and the local developers could always make more money. This was not a secret. The Times Picayune was covering it as per David Rovics’ song. There is a sort of whole false sense of inevitability. There’s also an awful sense of inevitability to the way the racism kicks in. If you’re black, you’re looting, if you’re white, you’re looking for food, and on and on and on. 

What we learn And if you want to understand how the 21st century is going to play out, have a look at the monstrosity that was the state response, and the corporate response, and the societal response by and large, to Katrina. That monstrosity shows you what you need to know. So you won’t be surprised. 

What happened next, New Orleans was “rebuilt” and gentrified and it’s slowly being eaten by sea level rise. 

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

See, also Naomi Klein See also Rebecca Solnit Paradise Built in Hell, et cetera. 

See also Kim Stanley Robinson’s eerily prescient 40 days of rain imagery!

Also on this day: 

August 29, 1990 – The Australian mining and forestry industries threaten to spit the dummy

August 29, 2008 – business tells Labor to go softly (Labor then does, obvs).