Tag: 2006

Categories
Australia

April 16 2006 – Ian Macfarlane says renewable support schemes are “Mickey Mouse”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 16th, 2006, The Federal Industry Minister is his inimitable self…

In an Interview with the ABC’s Four Corners in April 2006, the Industry Minister, Senator Ian Macfarlane described State incentive schemes such as VRET as ‘Mickey Mouse schemes.’ (Prest, 2007: 254)

Four Corners 16 April 2007 Earth Wind and Fire

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that that Howard and his pals had been trying to strangle renewables – almost ten years previously they’d been forced to promise a renewables target in the lead up to the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC.

What we learn is that opponents of an action can toggle effortlessly between “it’s too much” and “it’s not enough”.  So for example, at various points the Howard regime said, “well, Kyoto wouldn’t make a difference, therefore, we’re not doing it.” And here we see an environment minister Ian MacFarlane calling the renewable energy schemes Mickey Mouse.

It’s the classic somebody accused of killing their parents is convicted and before sentencing says to the judge,”well, in mitigation, I’d like the fact taken into account that I’m an orphan.” 

What happened next? MacFarlane was dumped as environment minister and replaced by young thrusting or young-ish thrusting Malcolm Turnbull the following year. In November 2007, the Australian Labour Party formed the government did some things to improve renewables (while epically failing on the big picture).

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 16, 1980 – “a risk averse society might prefer nuclear power generation to fossil fuel burning”

April 16, 1980 – Melbourne Age reports “world ecology endangered”

April 16, 2008 – Aussie trades unions, greenies, companies tried to get CCS ‘moving.’

Categories
Australia Business Responses

April 10, 2006 – “Business warms to change” (Westpac, Immelt)

Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 10th, 2006, business groups split on climate action.

New research on global warming has caused a split at the top end of town, writes Deborah Snow.

WESTPAC chief executive David Morgan had an interesting story to tell at an invitation-only breakfast for a handful of journalists in Sydney last week.

The anecdote concerned a recent private conversation with the head of the giant General Electric Company in the US, Jeff Immelt.

“He said to me he was virtually certain that the first action of the next president of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change. And he wasn’t saying that as a casual political comment … he is [allocating] billions of dollars worth of investment in the confidence of that development.”

Snow, D. (2006) Business warms to change The Sydney Morning Herald 10th April , page 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified and become international lore, sorry, law. The European Emissions Trading Scheme had come into effect. And the big banks were looking at all the money that might be made from carbon trading, and thinking “we’d like a piece of that.” There was already a failed history of getting a Futures Exchange going or getting Australian Prime Minister John Howard to listen to insurers and banks from like 2003. But it’s always worth another roll of the dice, another go. And that’s what happened here. 

What we learn is that a lot of what’s driving their alleged philanthropic efforts is actually about sniffing out new markets, especially if the international environment, for want of a better phrase, is changing. 

What happened next, the Westpac thing went nowhere. But it added to the load and in September of the same year, the issue broke through and in November 2006, Howard was forced to create this Shergold Report process to look at emissions trading. 

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 10th, 2010 – activists hold “party at the pumps”

April 10, 2013 – US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

Categories
Australia

February 13, 2006 – Four Corners reveals the “Greenhouse Mafia”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, February 13th, 2006. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners documentary on “Greenhouse mafia”

You can see a bit of it here

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a lobbyist, Guy Pearse had written a really interesting PhD thesis. The Millennium drought seemed never-ending, as did Australian Prime Minister John Howard‘s opposition to any climate action  unless it was loose and clearly, phoney talk of nuclear as a solution. And so Four Corners, which is a bit like Horizon, was looking to return to an issue that they had  covered extensively in the 1990s. 

And it latched on to recently published research by Guy Pearse. The program was a crucial weakening of Howard’s legitimacy/hegemony which would be dealt killer blows through the rest of 2006.

 What we learn is that academic research can sometimes – if the stars align – make a difference, at least in the agenda-setting phase, possibly, in the implementation phase, who knows? 

 What happened next

A very good book – “High and Dry” came out the following year, based on (but also extending) Pearse’s PhD.  Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister. And you know the rest…

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 13, 2007- Industry is defo allowed to silence scientists…

Feb 13, 2015 – We refuse to divest ourselves of illusions

Categories
Australia

December 30, 2006 – “Industry snubs climate strategy”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 30, 2006, the coal-floggers were, surprise surprise, not happy with spending money on climate change mitigation…

Australia’s coal-fired electricity industry has dismissed the Federal Government’s key strategy to cut the nation’s escalating greenhouse emissions as too expensive, financially risky and untested. The National Generators Forum, the 21 companies that dominate Australia’s power industry say the Government’s plans to rely heavily on carbon capture and underground storage to clean up emissions from coal burning are unrealistic, and will not work. Its members are also not convinced carbon dioxide is linked to climate change.

Beeby, R. 2006. Industry snubs climate strategy. Canberra Times, 30 December.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard government had been forced – kicking and screaming – to start to seriously pretend that it was going to do something about Australia’s domestic emissions. Howard had appointed a bunch of business types to the so-called Shergold Report committee, and was trying to make the right noises. But for some of the knuckle-draggers it wasn’t enough – they didn’t get that it was all kayfabe…

What I think we can learn from this

There are always knuckle-draggers and the climate skepticism thing is entertaining… But they were also right about CCS not working -l and this is one of those pivotal moments which, if I had my time over, I’d explore again.

What happened next

Howard’s Shergold Report thing convinced no one – it just made him look weak and he got his ass handed to him in the November 2007 election. He was, I think, only the second Prime Minister to lose his seat in an election. 

CCS went nowhere in terms of reality, but continues to have a wonderful life in Australia as a fantasy technology.

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 10, 2006 – Shergold Group announced

Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 10, 2006 Australian Prime Minister John Howard, cornered on the subject of climate change, undertakes a U-turn that convinces absolutely no-one (but gives ‘conservative’ commentators something to write about while convincing themselves that all is well).

Shergold Group announced – J Howard (Prime Minister), Prime Ministerial Task Group On Emissions Trading, media release, 10 December 2006. Reports on 31 may 2007

On the same day, 10 December, as bushfires ravaged north-eastern Victoria and Sydney’s dam levels dropped ever lower, Howard appointed a high-level business and government taskforce to report on global emissions trading options by May 2007…. It has a whiff of big business panicking a little because having delayed action for so long, the main polluters will be fearful of Labor designing a future trading scheme rather than one designed by a Coalition government.

(Hogarth, 2007:32) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australians had – almost 20 years after the previous wave – become agitated (or at least agitatable) about climate change, in the context of the seemingly-endless Millennium Drought, and international factors (including Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth). Meanwhile, Federal Labor politician Kevin Rudd had been banging on about it, and getting traction. By the time the Shergold thing was actually announced (it must have been on the drawing board for a while?) Rudd had become opposition leader, and it was clear climate was going to be a key tool in Rudd’s attempt to unseat Howard at the next Federal Election, which had to happen by December 2007. 

What I think we can learn from this

When they are cornered, politicians will resort to “task forces” which will produce reports. They hope this will remove the oxygen from the issue, and that they can say they are “listening”/consulting. It’s an old tactic, but it works (see also Macmillan Manoeuvre).

What happened next

The Shergold Report was released the following May, but did not achieve the closure/diversion that Howard clearly wanted it to. Events overtook it, the tide of opinion had decisively shifted. Howard was toast. Not that Rudd was actually any better on the issue. 

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

On the sudden coming of the climate issue in late 2006, see The Third Degree by Murray Hogarth.

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

Seventeen years ago, on this day, November 2, 2006, the New Scientist

MANY countries would love to bury the problem of rising carbon dioxide levels and forget about it. Soon they will be able to do just that, hiding CO2 away in caverns, aquifers and porous rocks beneath the seabed.

The London Convention governing burial of material in the sea was amended on 2 November, making it legal to bury CO2 in natural structures under the oceans. Twenty-nine countries ratified it, including the UK, China and Australia.

Anon (2006) R.I.P. CO2. New Scientist, November 18, Pg. 6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was certain people and organsiations had been pushing for carbon sequestration technologies, carbon capture and storage. 

Wth the storage, there had been early suggestions that you simply have the CO2 into the very deep oceans, and it will then liquefy and sink. That was maybe not such a good idea. The fallback came up of saline aquifers and so forth. But the law still needed to be changed at an international level. And this was the moment that that happened.. 

What I think we can learn from this is that if there are laws in the way they can be changed. I think it was Rockefeller, who said, “I paid lawyers to tell me how to get something done, not that it’s against the law” words to that effect. Laws are there not to protect the “environment” or poor people, they are there to put a nice gloss on what the rich are doing. And to chain the poor. They make the laws to chain us well. 

What happened next

CCS did not happen next. Has not happened yet. Yet

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
Denial

May 18, 2006-  Denialist nutjobs do denialist nutjobbery. Again.

Seventeen  years ago, on this day, May 18, 2006, American denialists tried to confuse the public, again.

Following the release of the film, An Inconvenient Truth, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a group funded in part by ExxonMobil, launches an advertisement campaign welcoming increased carbon dioxide pollution. “Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution, we call it life,” the ad says. [Competitive Enterprise Institute, 5/2006; New York Times, 9/21/2006]

May 18, 2006-May 28, 2006: Global Warming Skeptic Organization Launches Pro- Greenhouse Gas Advertising Campaign

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=CEIadverts200605#CEIadverts20060

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was coming out, and therefore the denialists wanted to be able to get journalists to quote “an opposing view” for what is laughably called “balance.” And so they reused their “greening Earth co2 is plant food” claim because it’s simple, and seems commonsensical. 

What I think we can learn from this

And this is part of the manipulation of the media that had already been identified by Boykoff and Boykoff in 2004 – “Balance as Bias”. This is a classic example of the way that cashed-up and well-connected entities can game the system. And of course, if their views aren’t quoted, people can then flak the journalist and say “classic liberal censorship,” “echo chamber,” et cetera. So it’s a win win. 

What happened next

The CEI kept doing this bullshit, without shame, without remorse, because that’s who these people are.

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
Canada Denial

 April 6, 2006 –  Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

Seventeen years ago, on this day, April 6, 2006, the Canadian culture wars kept going.

April 6th 2006 “open letter” of “60 experts” to Harper in Financial Post Page 93 of Climate Cover-Up?

“Last week 60 accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines wrote an open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister. They wrote to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the […] government’s climate-change plans.”

https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/979

Mr. Cool and Friends

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

There was a strong (and ultimately successful) effort to get Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. This sort of thing, with the usual code words “balanced, comprehensive”  was part of it.

What I think we can learn from this

Those who want to keep being rich, and don’t care if the planet burns down as a consequence, they’re persistent and skilful.

What happened next

Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, and is in a tussle with Australia for “shittiest climate criminal settler colony”.

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

November 4, 2006 – Australians “Walk against Warming”

On this day, 16 years ago, a few months into one of the periodic explosions of concern about climate change, a Big Event happened in Sydney (and elsewhere)

“The Walk against Warming in Sydney on 4 November 2006, connected to similar events around the country, provided further cause to worry about the environment movement’s strategic grasp of the change opportunity now emerging. Business in many guises is now a key part of driving climate action, yet there was no formal sign of this at the rally. The speakers were the usual suspects: an environmental group, a trade unionist, Greens leader Bob Brown, the then ALP environmental spokesman Anthony Albanese and a church leader. Not a business leader or commercial voice to be heard, and when the Sunday papers reported the event the next morning, they were mainly interested in a celebrity participant, the Hollywood star Cate Blanchett.”

(Hogarth, 2007:62)

For an account – see here.

For my two cents, see this piece in The Conversation from 2018 about the (limited) utility of marches

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 382ish ppm. At time of writing it was 416ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

We may be beyond ups and downs in public awareness now, with the wreckage piling up around us all the time. But even within that “pervasive awareness” there will be lulls, when “normal life” seems to be returning. So, good to remember this pattern.

What happened next

The climate wars – Howard versus Rudd, Abbott versus Gillard.  Exhaustion for the small groups that tried to make a (local/national/global) difference.  Lost opportunities, wasted time that we didn’t have. So, you know, the usual.

Categories
Economics of mitigation United Kingdom

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publshed.

On this day, October 30 in 2006 the Stern Review was published. This had been commissioned by Gordon Brown, the United Kingdom “Chancellor of the Exchequer” (Treasurer) a year previously (see this blog post).

Nick Stern, a World Bank economist who could hardly be accused of being a swivel-eyed Luddite, argued that 

“This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 379.33ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Why this matters. 

We knew. And we knew there was a “business case” for saving life on earth (the very words are bizarre, aren’t they?)

What happened next?

Oh, arguments about the “discount rate” (i.e. Stern was too optimistic)

A variety of “mini-Stern” reports, and for a while everyone using the language. Then nothing.

Fun fact – when Stern visited Australia, Prime Minister John Howard basically dismissed him as “English.”