Tag: 2006

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

June 5, 2006 – Rising Tide boat blockade

Nineteen years ago, on this day, June 5th, 2006, 70 brave people put their bodies on the line…

June 5, 2006, and Nov. 3, 2007: Rising Tide boat blockades of Newcastle port

On June 5, 2006, in a Rising Tide Australia action, 70 people used small boats to blockade the port of Newcastle, Australia, which exports 80 million tons of coal each year. The protest aimed to call attention to a planned expansion that would allow the port to export twice that amount.[1] The action was repeated by 100 people on Nov. 3, 2007: at this second action, participants attempted to block ships from entering the port for four hours, but police boats managed to escort three ships into the port. At one point, a police jetski rammed one woman’s kayak, resulting in her hospitalization.[2][3]

Citizen action and protests against coal in Australia – Global Energy Monitor

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that all the petitions, marches and begging of politicians had not worked. Emissions climbed, fossil intensive infrastructure projects kept getting approved (and still get approved).

The specific context was that the Howard government (like the Keating and Hawke governments before it) had mouthed occasional platitudes about “the environment” but were hell-bent on saying yes to whatever fossil extraction and export was proposed. 

What I think we can learn from this is that brave people have had the foresight and clarity – it hasn’t been enough. What was needed was broad-based movements. Oh well…

What happened next was that the exports and burning went on, the emissions and concentrations went up and up. The mainstream politicians have mostly given up pretending to give a shit.

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 5, 1963  – JFK says yes to SST – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 1967 –  Working Group on Atmospheric Pollution and Atmospheric Chemistry – All Our Yesterdays

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

June 5, 1994 – that referendum idea is back again… – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 2000 – Liberals pushback against Kyoto, a UN conspiracy… – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 2001 – NSW Premier Bob Carr promises a climate advertising blitz – All Our Yesterdays

June 5, 2006 – IPA sets up astroturf outfit – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

May 25, 2006 – Ian Campbell versus sanity

Twenty years ago, on this day, May 25th, 

“If you genuinely tell people that building a wind farm here will save the planet from climate change you are doing a massive disservice to the environment. It is an atrocious misleading of the Australian community.”

Ian Campbell, Senate Estimates ECITA Committee, 25 May 2006, p.116.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 3xxppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that by this time, the Howard Government was beginning to look clapped out and tired. The first couple of environment ministers who had been intelligent and slick had been replaced by someone who was maybe not in their league, and he was starting to look idiotic, as was the government. 

The specific context was that by this time, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Westpac and other organisations had released their “business case for early (sic) action on climate change.” The Millennium drought was ongoing. There was going to be an UNFCCC negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia still hadn’t ratified. Mostly though, Prime Minister John Howard was just beginning to look like he wasn’t quite on top of things. There was a technology deal with the United States and Korea, the AP6, but it wasn’t really convincing people, and there was clearly going to be trouble ahead on climate and environment generally.  

What I think we can learn from this. Governments get tired, and the good ministers burn out, or flame out, and they are replaced by second or third rate is and then you go into a death spiral. 

What happened next. Howard lost the 2007 election, and incoming Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd deployed all of his considerable skill, humility and tact to usher Australia into a wonderful climate politics where sharp emissions reductions were combined with a realistic adaptation policy and… oh, come on. You know what happened.

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: 

May 25, 1953 – “I read about them in Time Magazine” (Gilbert Plass’s greenhouse warning

May 25, 1962- JFK speaks to a Conservation conference 

May 25, 1990 – Thatcher opens Hadley Centre

May 25, 1992 Keating Cabinet discusses Rio – All Our Yesterdays

May 25 – Interview with Ben King – of #climate, education and the need for tubas

May 25, 2011 – Aussie #climate scientist smeared rather than engaged. Plus ca change…

Categories
United States of America

May 2, 2006 – “While Washington Slept” by Mark Hertsgaard…

Twenty years ago, on this day, 

While Washington Slept article by Hertsgaard

The Queen of England is afraid. International C.E.O.’s are nervous. And the scientific establishment is loud and clear. If global warming isn’t halted, devastating sea-level rises will be inevitable by 2100. So how did this virtual certainty get labeled a “liberal hoax” in the U.S.? Try the same tactics Big Tobacco used to deny the dangers of smoking.

“http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that American journalists had been writing about carbon dioxide build-up as a potential problem for a very long time. One of my favourites is from the Chicago Tribune front page in March of 1982, but there are others.

And here we see Mark Hertsgaard, author of Earth Odyssey, among others, doing a magazine feature at a time when the Kyoto Protocol has finally been ratified, and there was clearly going to be an international process to replace it with something “better”, and at a time when the Bush regime had lost all credibility because of both international factors such as the resistance to the occupation of Iraq, and its useless response to Hurricane Katrina. It was at this point, nine months since New Orleans…

What I think we can learn from this. that there have been think-pieces in chin-stroking liberal magazines for a long time. but the question is always, “who’s going to make something happen?”, which is then a question of “who is going to mobilise what resources and find new resources and intervene how in ‘the system’ (man)?”

What happened next.  Everyone kept writing chin-stroking pieces. One of my favourites is the one about Australia in Rolling Stone by Jeff Goodell.

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: 

May 2, 1989 – a DC forum about “Our Common Future” – All Our Yesterdays

May 2, 1990 – Nairobi Declaration on Climatic Change – All Our Yesterdays

May 2, 2009 – Australian Liberals warned of wipe-out if seen as “anti-climate action” #auspol

May 2, 2012 – CCS is gonna save us all. Oh yes.

May 2, 2019 – Committee on Climate change report on net zero by 2050

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

April 24, 2006 – CCS is gonna save us (again) (meeting of the parliamentary and scientific committee)

On this day, 20 years ago,  

OUR ENERGY FUTURES FOR SECURE AND SUSTAINABLE POWER: FROM CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY WITH CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE, MICROGENERATION, TIDAL, WIND AND NUCLEAR

MEETING OF THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON MONDAY 24TH APRIL 2006- Science in Parliament newsletter

scienceinparliament.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/sip63-3.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that CCS had been talked about briefly in the late 1970s, and a bit more in the early 1990s, but nobody took it seriously because, you know, behaviour change and carbon trading was all that was needed.

The specific context was that from the early 2000s it was obvious that behaviour change and carbon trading were grotesquely inadequate. Ooh, let’s pull “CCS” out of the garbage can (Cohen’s garbage can).

What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want an idea to grab a minister’s attention, get the policy wonks on board (they’ll influence the civil servants) and also the minister’s colleagues (loved or loathed) in parliament.  

What happened next:  CCS got more support. A “competition” was announced in late 2007. Fell over. Was picked up, dusted off and started again. Kneecapped with the body thrown in a dumpster in 2015.  Resurrected again between 2016 and 2018.  And is currently having enormous sums of public money thrown at it.  Somebody should write a book.

Also on this day

April 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?

Categories
Australia

April 7, 2006 – Howard versus moths and cockatoos …

Twenty years ago today, governments make their usual big empty promises…

On 7 April, two days after the Bald Hills decision, Neil Mitchell of 3AW put the Prime Minister on the spot in relation to a housing project west of Melbourne at Melton, saying ‘there’s a $400 million development out there at risk’ because of the elusive and endangered grassland-dwelling Golden Sun Moth. The Prime Minister was unaware of the moth. Still he promised ‘I will investigate that’. Other stories queried whether the endangered red-tailed black cockatoo would ‘sink a $650 million pulpmill’ in SA, and whether the little known flatback turtle would continue to raise an issue for Chevron’s $11 billion Gorgon gas project off the northwest coast of Western Australia.

(Prest, 2007: 253)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 election with a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor, but this had not won them for the election. Small-g greens had come out for Labor, and the Liberals decided they had been “stabbed in the back” and that all of this was all climate change stuff was a socialist hokum. John Howard, who had become prime minister 10 years before the events described here, had done everything in his power to protect the fossil fuel industry and to quash the growth in renewables and to prevent international action. 

The specific context was that Howard was beginning to look old, beginning to lose his grip. Kyoto had, in fact, finally been ratified by enough nations to come into force, and negotiations for a success and protocol were underway. 

Also, the Australian Conservation Foundation had teamed up with various banks, for example, including Westpac, and released a study with the laughable title “early action on climate change”  that was a couple of days before this. And Howard’s environment minister was maybe not quite as sharp as either of them thought and had managed to create opportunities for people to poke fun. This latest one was the apparent John Howard beginning to not quite be on top of things. We now know that late 2006 was the year that the dam broke and that Howard stopped being invincible and started to look very, very beatable for the 2007 election.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are usually cracks in the dam. Sometimes these cracks just stay there. Other times, with hindsight, you can see that floods about to begin. 

What happened next:  Howard not only lost the 2007 election, but he also lost his own seat.

 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 7, 1980 – C02 problem is most important issue… “another decade will slip by” warns Wally Broecker to Senator Tsongas

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

April 7, 2010 – Ziggie tries to sprinkle Stardust – 50 nuclear reactors by 2050 – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Science

February 11, 2006 – Nice report on CSIRO (Australian science body) getting gutted by idiots.

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 11, 2006,

FRED Prata was flicking through some satellite pictures one day when he saw a “funny looking cloud”. It got him thinking. A few years later, that train of thought produced a piece of technology worth tens of millions of dollars — possibly hundreds of millions — every year to the international airline industry.

Chandler, J. 2006. Discarded scientists fail to grasp CSIRO logic. The Age, 11 February.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/10/1139542406240.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since the permanent invasion in 1788 Australia has always been a set of settler colonies keen to exploit natural resources for short term gain. Great god development and all that… this required knowledge, science (production and, inevitably, impact science). The CSIRO was born.

The specific context was that CSIRO scientists had been at the forefront of investigating climate change impacts, from the early 1970s onwards. By the 2000s, they were under the cosh.

What I think we can learn from this is that the distinction between production science and impact science is crucial, and under-understood. And that our lords and masters are basically morons who kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

What happened next: The attacks on scientists producing inconvenient truths have continued, regardless of the party in charge. Because the parties are there to keep the “show” (or relentless extraction and accumulation) on the road.

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 11, 1970 – Prince Phillip, Prince Charles and the Shell/BP “Environment in the Balance” film…
Feb 11, 1970 – Prince Charles attends “Environment in the Balance” film premiere
February 11, 1993 – Liberal Party plans would not meet climate goals, says expert
Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

February 10, 2006 – James Hansen on science, politics and tropical storms…

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 10, 2006

“On February 10, 2006, the Friday of the week that George Deutsch resigned, Jim spoke at a conference on politics and science, sponsored by the New School for Social Research in Manhattan. (He was added at the last minute on account of his recent notoriety.) IN a talk derived from the Keeling talk, which was now about two months old, he decided to add a brief discussion of tropical storms, because the topic was “especially relevant to this conference.”

See these two pages from Mark Bowen’s Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming.

2006 Hansen at conference on science and politics at New School for Social Research (Bowen Censoring Science page 143)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Hansen had been abused, ignored, sidelined in 1989 by the George HW Bush administration, and had basically gone back to the lab (that’s no criticism of the man, btw).

The specific context was that by 2006 the climate issue was heating up again – the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified (thanks, Russia) – so the international negotiations were “back on”, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme was underway, and Al Gore’s film was about to come out.
Last summer (2005) Hurricane Katrina had hit New Orleans, with thousands dead.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Bush regime was full of assholes.

What happened next: Hansen started getting arrested at protests about coal plants and pipelines, and has kept on with the science.

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.

See this from 2008

James Hansen and Mark Bowen on Censored Science : NPR

Also on this day: 

February 10, 1995 – Faulkner folds on carbon tax – doesn’t have the numbers in Cabinet

February 10, 2006 – The Australian Conservation Foundation tries to get governments to take climate seriously… – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 26, 2006 – Major Climate March by vulnerable minorities in the USA  

Twenty years ago on this day, January 26th, 2006, a climate protest march took place in Washington DC.

Nation’s snowmen march against global warming https://www.theonion.com/nations-snowmen-march-against-global-warming-1819568251

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that for decades – centuries – civil society has ignored the most. vulnerable groups. It is only when those vulnerable groups can come together, form coalitions and make a “critical mass” that they will be paid any attention.

The specific context was that by 2006 it was clear that climate change would not be dealt with unless the state and corporations were forced into it. This was a noble but doomed effort by a minority, very endangered group to make that happen. Perhaps they should have tried seizing the means of production.

What I think we can learn from this is that you have to take a stand, even if you’re doomed.

What happened next

Well, the movement just kind of melted away

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 26, 1970 – British PM offers US a “new special relationship” on pollution. (Conservative then tries to outflank him.)

January 26, 1972 – “Enhance Oil Recovery” with carbon dioxide kicks off.
Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 18, 2006 – Carbon tax 2 (Peter Costello in Los Angeles)

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 18th, 2006 Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello gave a speech in Los Angeles. (In August, Anthony Albanese would use it, to punch the bruise).

On 18 January 2006, in a speech in Los Angeles supporting price signals for energy, Peter Costello stated that:

“A market based solution will give the right signal to producers and to consumers. It will make clear the opportunity cost of using energy resources, thereby encouraging more and better investment in additional sources of supply and improving the efficiency with which they are used. That has to be good for both producers and consumers and better for the environment.

“It is not surprising Peter Costello made this statement as in August 2003 a Cabinet submission to establish a national emissions trading scheme was co-sponsored by four Departments – Treasury, Environment, Industry & Foreign Affairs.

“Unfortunately, the joint Cabinet submission was scuttled by the Prime Minister who is stuck in the past and unable to embrace the future. 

MEDIA RELEASE – ANTHONY ALBANESE MP 16 August 2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian elites had been pretending they would act on climate change for almost 20 years by this stage.

The specific context was that John Howard, Costello’s boss, had squashed an emissions trading proposal in August 2003, in the face of a united cabinet.

What I think we can learn from this is they (Costello, Albanese etc) are weasels serving their own interests and those of their rich rich mates, who simply don’t care that hell will rain down.

What happened next 

In April 2006 business and environment groups (ACF) called for an emissions trading scheme.

At the end of the year new Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd started using the issue as a stick to beat Howard with.

The climate issue exploded into view before then, and at the end of the year, Howard did a kind-of-U-turn, which didn’t save him.

See also

Albo or John Howard? Who is the bigger climate criminal? – All Our Yesterdays

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS – All Our Yesterdays

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
Australia

January 14, 2006 – IPA gets laughed at for its climate stance.

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 14th, 2006 one Australian offshoot of the Atlas Network had shade thrown at it by a very good Australian climate scientist.

“The Institute of Public Affairs supports, as far as I know, road rules and safety standards, for example for automotive design, medical procedures and drugs. Sensible regulation, with carrots and sticks for people to do the right thing, is necessary in an imperfect world. The same must apply to environmental damage caused by human activities that threatens future human health and welfare.”

Pittock, B. 2006 “In global warming war, may market forces be with you”, The Age, January 14. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  the Atlas Network – well, you can read about it here. The IPA, set up during WW2 had been a fairly stodgy beast, but then became a leading player in the push to the right… .

The specific context was  from 1989 the IPA had been pushing doubt and denial. They were (and still are, one assumes) proud of that..

What I think we can learn from this is that there are simple arguments – look up the Plimsoll line – that do cut through all the bullshit.

What happened next

The IPA continued on its merry way and was a major player in the denial-o-sphere of the late 2000s and early 2010s.

The emissions kept climbing. The Age of consequences (for rich white people, the only ones who matter) has begun. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 14, 1962 – As much truth as one can bear, James Baldwin

January 14, 2003 – WWF Australia raises the alarm – All Our Yesterdays

January 14, 2010 – Investors hold UN summit on #climate risk