Tag: 2006

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.”

Categories
Australia

October 11, 2006 – “Climate Institute” begins tour of rural Victoria

On this day, October 11 2006 the then new “Climate Institute” began a tour of rural Victoria…

A group calling itself the Climate Institute has started a tour of centres across the eastern states calling for action on climate change.

A panel of four, two farmers, a scientist and a wind power expert, spoke at a public meeting in the south-eastern Victorian city of Sale last night.

The group was started by a Hamilton grazier financed by a trust linked with the Murdoch media empire.

Panel member and former CSIRO scientist Graeme Peerman says farmers will be the first and hardest hit by climate change.

“At the federal level we don’t have an energy strategy, we have a document called ‘securing Australia’s energy futures’ which is a grab bag of all of the bits and pieces that you might have together, but nowhere in there is a real clear strategy as to how we build the real balance,” he said.

Sale hears push for climate change strategy ABC, 12 October 2006

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-10-12/sale-hears-push-for-climate-change-strategy/1284712?pfm=ms

[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 –  Australia was waking up to climate change, thanks in part to the Millennium Drought, which seemed endless.  Internationally, things were moving. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had been released, the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report was coming.  

The Climate Institute had been set up the year before, and was beginning to make waves

Why this matters. 

We have tried.  We have tried and we have failed. Good to remember this…

What happened next?

The Climate Institute kept going, shutting up shop in 2017. See my Conversation piece on it going under

https://theconversation.com/so-long-climate-institute-too-sensible-for-the-current-policy-soap-opera-74360

Categories
Agnotology Science Scientists United States of America

Jan 29, 2006: Attempts to gag James Hansen revealed

Jan 29

On this day, the New York Times released a report, written by Andy Revkin, about how famed climate scientist James Hansen was being subjected to attempts at gagging him by some of George W Bush’s appointed goons. You can read all about it here. There’s a whole (very good) book about the campaign, called Censoring Science.

Hansen had already been up against this sort of stuff in 1981, when the incoming Reagan administration had cut his funding in retaliation to a previous front page story on the New York Times.

Why this matters? 

Because if scientists, charities, think tanks, civil trade unions, etc, are gagged and silenced, then the public don’t get a real sense of “what’s up” (though by now, it amounts to wilful ignorance, and anyway, information on its own counts for nothing). This is all part of the long war against impact science, usually by no means exclusively, on the part of the “ right “. You have to remember that when the “left” is in charge, it also doesn’t go particularly well for independently minded scientists.

What happened next

Hansen is still publishing. You can see his Google Scholar page here  because Hansen is in the old Yiddish term, a mensch.