Tag: 2005

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).

Categories
Australia Coal

April 5, 2005 – Coal21 holds first conference

Nineteen years ago, on this day, April 5th, 2005, the coal lobby got moving on spouting idiotic guff about carbon capture and storage.

5th April 2005 COAL21 first conference

https://fossil.energy.gov/archives/cslf/sites/default/files/documents/Taskforce_PublicCommunicationandOutreach.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was still banging on about technology as the solution, not that messy UNFCCC process with all those poor nations with their hands out. 

And of course, Kyoto had been ratified. So Australia was going to have to engage with whatever came after Kyoto if it wanted to be a player. The Coal21 process was shambling along, it had been launched just over a year earlier. And everyone still believed (or pretended to do so) that technology would save the day.

What we learn is that there’s no necessary connection between reality and technology advocacy.

What happened next? The CCS bandwagon rolled on, especially thanks to huge injections of cash from Kevin Rudd. But then, regardless, the wheels fell off in 2009-10, in Australia at least. 

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: 

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
Scientists United States of America

 December 15, 2005 – James Hansen versus Bush again…

Eighteen years ago, on this day, December 15, 2005, it was – Hansen versus Whitehouse again… 

“NOW BACK TO the Keeling talk and its repercussions. There was no press release or press conference about the talk, but the American Geophysical Union meeting attracts a substantial number of reporters. BBC radio did an impromptu interview with me as I left the speaker’s platform. Bill Blakemore used a quote from my talk in an ABC News story the next day. The New York Times and the Washington Post, in articles about international climate negotiations, made note of my comment that 2005 was likely to be at least as warm as 1998, the previous warmest year in the period of instrumental data. The International Herald Tribune extracted several paragraphs from my talk, verbatim, making a short article under my byline.

Unbeknownst to me, this modest level of publicity was causing growing concern in the Office of Public Affairs at NASA headquarters. And the next week, on December 15, this festering consternation of NASA officials exploded into what the agency’s public affairs employees described as a “shitstorm.” The immediate cause of the explosion was the statement on ABC’s Good Morning America program that “NASA is announcing that this year, 2005, is tied for the hottest year ever.” ABC did not mention my name, but indeed I had provided our analysis of global temperature for the meteorological year (December through November) to Bill Blakemore the previous day….

Also, J. T. Jezierski, Griffin’s deputy chief of staff and White House liaison, told Bowen that on December 15 he had received an angry call from the White House and added that “the ‘sustained media presence … of Dr. Hansen’ was the dominant issue all that day and the next for every top official in public affairs and communications at the agency—himself, chief of staff Paul Morrell, strategic communications director Joe Davis, and David Mould—and that these officials also held discussions with Michael Griffin during those two days.” – 

James Hansen, Storms of my Grandchildren

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Bush administration was trying to gag the troublesome priest James Hansen. Of course this was a rerun of what had happened in 1989 when Al Gore found out about the previous attempt, it had led to the Bush administration having to concede that yes it would enter into climate negotiations.

What I think we can learn from this is that rather than deal with physical reality, powerful actors will try to shoot the messenger or silence him.

What happened next is that Hansen retired and continued to be a troublesome priest.

Meanwhile the carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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
Carbon Capture and Storage Scientists United Kingdom

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

On this day 18 years ago (December 5, 2005), UK Chief Scientific Advisor David King said CCS or bust…

“Mankind’s only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change is burying CO2 emissions underground, says the UK’s chief scientist. Sir David King told the BBC carbon capture and storage technology was the only way forward as China and India would inevitably burn their cheap coal. This would be disastrous unless they were persuaded to put CO2 from power stations into porous rocks, he said. It is thought carbon capture and storage would add 10-15% to fuel bills. The process is currently being developed by an international consortium of energy firms. It involves removing carbon dioxide from emissions by one of three scientific methods. The carbon dioxide is then pumped at pressure into porous rocks, where it is expected to stay for 1,000 years or more. By then it is anticipated that carbon-free energy sources will have been developed. Professor King has often spoken of his deep concerns about climate change and has warned of a catastrophe if we keep emitting carbon at current levels. By 2030, China’s CO2 emissions from coal use alone are expected to have doubled. found it via –

Anon. (2005) Scientist hopes for CO2 storage. BBC, December 6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4501964.stm

References

PS Found this via Bowman J. & Juliette Addison (2008) Carbon capture and storage – “the only hope for mankind?”: an update, Law and Financial Markets Review, 2:6, 516-52

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 7, 2005, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Greens call on the gov to rule out nuclear energy and release a report “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Howard government had asked a pro-nuclear scientist to do a review of nuclear power. This was after Howard and Bush had had one of their periodic meetings. The review made the same point that nuclear power was not going to be economic for Australia, and take too long to develop.

But it was also a useful “dead cat” strategy for Howard because he could wedge greens – he knew that some of them are pronuclear. Further, he knew it will take up time, energy and bandwidth and therefore distract from what he was (not) doing on climate.

But this is tricksy, and eventually the magician plays the same trick so many times that people spot how he does it and stop being impressed or even amused. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this is that nuclear is always a good “go to” if you want to avoid talking about what needs doing in the here and right now. And allow you to keep doing what you’re doing.

What happened next

Nuclear was not developed. It will not be developed in Australia because the population is not big enough and there aren’t enough big electricity consumers and anyway everyone has got wind and solar and the nuclear boat has sailed (and I don’t think the nuclear submarines will sail either. But who knows.)

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
Activism Australia

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 11, 2005, Australian activists took action.

On 11 August 2005 approximately 50 student environmentalists and Greenpeace volunteers unfurled a “Quit Coal” banner outside the plant while 12 activists occupied the brown coal pit, with two locking themselves to coal dredging equipment. This action drew worldwide attention to Hazelwood’s CO2 emissions and their harmful impacts on the global climate. (Wikipedia on Hazelwood)

See also https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-08-11/police-remove-greenpeace-mine-activists/2078834

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Victorian Government was continuing to talk about expanding and continuing with Hazelwood, which was burning brown coal. This, while abundant, was truly filthy. So Greenpeace were doing their best to keep the issue on the agenda, and to accelerate the demise of Hazelwood. 

What I think we can learn from this

Transitions take a long time. Involve a lot of blood sweat and tears.

What happened next

It took a long while. But finally, they won. Hazelwood is Toast and Victoria is going for wind and renewables.

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.