Tag: 2006

Categories
Australia

November 2, 2006 – throwing shade at the Great Barrier Reef

Nineteen years ago, on this day, November 2nd, 2006,

Federal Tourism Minister Fran Bailey says using “shade cloth” over parts of the Great Barrier Reef off Queensland could protect it from the harmful effects of global warming.

Earlier this week, Britain’s Stern report said climate change could cause a global economic downturn and bleach the reef.

Ms Bailey says the shade cloth idea came from a scientist who found that coral in natural shade was healthier than that in direct sunlight.

“One part of the reef the coral had vibrant colours and another part of the reef the colours weren’t as vibrant, and he was trying to find the scientific reason for this,” she said.

“And [he] discovered upon coming up to the surface, that that part of the reef that had vibrant colours was actually being given natural shade.”

One of the suggestions is to attach the shade cloth to pontoons, which is an idea Ms Bailey says is worth considering if it will help protect the reef.

“We’re very concerned because this is a $5.8 billion tourist industry on the reef, employing 33,000 people,” she said.

“So obviously we’re tackling this problem from both ends – the cause of the problem and also trying to find practical ways to mitigate the problem.”

November 2, 2006 Fran Bailey shade cloth and Great Barrier Reef

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-11-03/minister-suggests-shade-cloth-to-protect-great/1300248

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 was that the Howard government had, from 1996, done everything it could to slow domestic and international action on climate change.

The specific context was that in September 1996 the climate issue had broken through into public consciousness in Australia, and questions were being asked.  Also, as per the article, the Stern Review had been published.

What I think we can learn from this – hairless murder apes have murdered the biosphere. 

What happened next – the Reef keeps bleaching.  And bleaching.  Oh Gaia, what have we done?

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 2, 1957 – “Our Coal Fires are melting the poles” Birmingham Post 

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

November 2, 1994 – Greenpeace vs climate risk for corporates… 

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

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

Categories
Activism Australia

October 23, 2006 – Climate Adverts “put heat on government”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, October 23rd, 2006,

Climate ads put heat on govt for action

A group of academics have taken out ads in major newspapers urging the government to press for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

A group of academics and professionals concerned about climate change has taken out ads in major newspapers urging the Australian government to press for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The advertising, funded by the Climate Institute, comes as the government prepares to announce new measures to tackle man-made climate change.

The ads include messages such as “Gas Emissions From Our Politicians Are Now At A Critical Level” and “It’s Time The Government Broke The Drought”.

“An effective and credible response requires Australia’s national greenhouse gas emissions go down, not up,” the institute’s chief executive Corin Millais said in a statement.

“The Australian government’s current policy has already increased emissions by 10 per cent over the last decade and is set to increase them by a further 17 per cent by 2020.”

The institute, chaired by former NSW premier Bob Carr, has released a five-point plan to reduce emissions, which it says is Australia’s greatest challenge.

“This commonsense national five-point plan shows that there is a way forward for Australia to address climate change and help stop the most severe impacts,” Mr Millais said.

“Climate change can be tackled with a five-point plan that legislates to make emissions go down, not up, sets a carbon price, implements clean energy technologies, delivers on energy savings and places Australia in a leading role to cut emissions worldwide.

“Measures that turn around emissions will also promote opportunities for Australia to become a part of the booming global clean energy market – worth $74 billion last year.

“There are a wide range of solutions like wind, solar and bio-fuels that could be put into place right now.”

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions which Australia has refused to sign, Australia was given a target of a 108 per cent increase on 1990 emission levels.

The government has repeatedly said it is on track to meet that target.

The Climate Institute of Australia has taken out national newspaper advertisements calling on the Federal Government to seriously address global warming.

The advertisements are published in 13 newspapers in every state and territory, with a total readership of more than 6.5 million Australians.

They call on the Federal Government to ensure greenhouse emissions go down, not up.

The institute’s chief executive, Corin Millias, says the Federal Government’s existing policies are not working, and emissions have increased by 10 per cent over the last decade.

“We’ve got a major challenge in front of us and we will never solve the problem if our emissions profile keeps rising,” he said.

The advertisements follow a TV campaign that was broadcast in rural Australia.

The Federal Government says it is on track to meet its target by 2010.

23 October 2006 AAP Bulletins CANBERRA

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was that after years in the “meh, who cares, really?” zone, climate change had become, a month previously, the hot issue (bunch of different reasons). The Climate Institute, the brainchild of Clive Hamilton (who had set up the Australia Institute in the mid-1990s).

The specific context was that there was enormous pressure on John Howard, Prime Minister for ten years at this point, and an extremely effective stopper of climate action, to do a u-turn. This was part of that.

What I think we can learn from this – adverts and open letters have a certain utility – they can be a “shot across the bows” of a minister or government, reminding them that there are costs for the action (or inaction) they are currently undertaking.

What happened next – Prime Minister Howard did a u-turn in December, announcing an emissions trading taskforce (“The Shergold Report”). This did not help him burnish his image, and at the same time, Kevin Rudd toppled Kim Beasely to become leader of the opposition. Rudd had two sticks with which he planned to beat Howard – the Iraq War and climate change…

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: 

October 23, 1963 – JKF warns of actions “which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale.”

Categories
United Kingdom

September 1, 2006 – Cameron signs FOE’s “Big Ask”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, September 1st, 2006,

Opposition leader David Cameron signs up to FoE’s “The Big Ask”

 – part of the “de-toxify the tory brand” thing. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 was that there had been bipartisan concern about “the environment” in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Then, however, came the collapse of Keynesianism and the return to naked “fuck the poor”-ness with Thatcher, dressed up – as it always is – in words like ‘liberty’.

The specific context was that new leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron was trying to “detoxify” the Conservative brand, and “the environment” was the chosen means to do this.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are brief bouts of “competitive consensus” – there’s usually a bunch of different factors at play. Then you MIGHT get some policy “progress”, but good luck getting implementation.

What happened next – Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010, heading a coalition government because the Liberal Democrats wanted limousines and ministerial boxes.

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: 

September 1, 1970 – Environmentalism is an elite-diversion tactic, says American Maoist

September 1, 1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

September 1, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

August 31, 2006 – activists try to “Reclaim Power”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 31st, 2006 the first “Camp for Climate Action” has a day of “non-violent direct action” at Draw Power Station.

Day of action

On 31 August 2006, up to 600 people attended a protest called Reclaim Power converging on Drax and attempted to shut it down. There was a ‘kids march’ to Drax Power Station, with a giant ostrich puppet, made by The Mischief Makers. Two protesters climbed a lighting pylon at the edge of the Drax site and four others broke through the fence.[22] Thirty-eight protesters were arrested. The police reported that work at the power plant was not disrupted.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_for_Climate_Action#Drax_2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 was that there had been previous efforts to do direct action on climate change (Rising Tide) but the issue wasn’t yet “salient” enough among environmentalists to get things moving. At the G8 protests in Gleneagles in July 2005, dissatisfied environmentalists had proposed “A Camp for Climate Action.” Its first public meeting had been in Manchester in January 2006.

The specific context was that there were enough people who could tell that there was trouble ahead. But they/we lacked basic anthropological/sociological/whateverical insights into what movement building actually WAS. Oh well, all too late now, and was probably too late then. 

What I think we can learn from this – is that good intentions are really really not enough. But nothing was ever going to be enough, frankly. The inevitability was written in decades earlier – this is all just wriggling on the hook. 

What happened next – “Camp for Climate Action” which had begun because people were fed up with summit-hopping had, inevitably, within three years, degenerated into (checks notes) summit-hopping. And bewildered, they gave up the ghost in 2011. There was then “Reclaim Power” before XR came along and… oh, one loses the will to live, you know?

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: 

August 31, 1998 – Green dollar growing on trees?

August 31, 1992 – “Community Energy Audit” in Canberra 

August 31, 2005 – “Stop Climate Chaos” launched

August 31, 2011 – anti-carbon tax protesters call Anthony Albanese a “maggot”

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

August 8, 2006 – MIT Review on “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 8th, 2006. MIT Review has a story on, well, “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean” calling it a “A safe, high-capacity method could make carbon sequestration more practical.” 

God forbid breathless technophilia ever infect people’s cognitive faculties…

One way to combat global climate change is to directly capture carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as it is being emitted, and store it safely. But methods of carbon dioxide sequestration, notably, pumping the gas into underground geologic structures such as exhausted oil reservoirs, are not practical in many areas, and raise fears that the stored carbon dioxide will escape.

A better way to store carbon dioxide: Pump it into the sea floor in liquid form. There,high pressure and cold temperatures make it more dense than water in the surrounding rock, preventing it from rising to the surface. (Source: Daniel Schrag. Artist: Jared T. Williams)

Now researchers at Harvard University and Columbia University have proposed a new method for trapping nearly limitless amounts of carbon dioxide – a technique they say will be secure, as well as a practical option for areas located far from underground reservoirs.

The researchers, in an article posted online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, propose that carbon dioxide be pumped into the porous sediment a few hundred meters into the sea floor in deep parts of the ocean (greater than 3,000 meters deep), in what one of the researchers, Dan Schrag, professor of geochemistry at Harvard, calls “a fairly simple, permanent solution.”

The key was finding a “sweet spot,” where the pressure and temperature of the surrounding environment make carbon dioxide more dense than surrounding fluids, thereby trapping it in place. This situation occurs at the bottom of the ocean because of a combination of high pressure and low temperatures – a fact others have also noted in proposals to store carbon dioxide in deep parts of the ocean.

Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean | MIT Technology Review

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 was that from the mid-1970s various scientists had been saying “well, look if carbon dioxide build-up is actually a problem, we will just bury it in/under the oceans. Simples.”

The specific context was that the carbon dioxide build-up issue was back on the agenda because the Kyoto Protocol had come into effect – despite US and Australian intransigence – in February 2005. This meant that there would be a successor deal, and the rich countries wanted to be able to say “tech will fix it” to dodge calls for emissions cuts by rich people.

What I think we can learn from this is that we believe what is convenient to believe, and disregard the rest (yes, that’s a Simon and Garfunkel hollaback).

What happened next – the CCS bandwagon lost a wheel in 2011 or so. This has since been duct-taped back on, at considerable expense to the taxpayer.

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: 

August 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

July 26, 2006 – Costello versus wind farms

Nineteen years ago, on this day, July 26th, 2006,

The same month, the Treasurer Peter Costello stated in a doorstop interview, ‘Well if you are asking me my view on wind farms, I think they are ugly, I wouldn’t want one in my street, I wouldn’t want one in my own back yard’

(Prest, 2007: 254)

Peter Costello, Press Conference 26 July 2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 was that hostility to renewable energy has a long history in Australia, dating back to the 1970s. Coal was king, and intended to stay that way.

The specific context was that John Howard, Prime Minister since 1996 had been busy trying to slow the growth of renewables, with considerable success, as per the leaked minutes of the “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” in 2004. 

What I think we can learn from this is that old white conservative men with brittle fragile egos and limited understanding of – well – everything – have delayed the “energy transition” to the point where it is impossible and everything is turning to very hot shit. Oh well.

What happened next – Costello didn’t “have the ticker” to challenge Howard for the top job. Renewables got some help under Labor of Rudd and Gillard, but nowhere near what was needed to push emissions down. 

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

Hudson, M. 2017 Wind Beneath Their Contempt. ERSS

Also on this day: 

July 26, 1967 – Allen Ginsberg tells Gary Snyder it’s “a general lemming situation”

July 26, 1977 – Australians warned about cities being flooded #CanberraTimes

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times…

Categories
United Kingdom

May 23, 2006 – David Attenborough finally comes out on climate

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 2006  David Attenborough was interviewed on Ten O’Clock news about his acceptance of climate science, ahead of the showing of a two part documentary.

Are We Changing Planet Earth? and Can We Save Planet Earth? are two programmes that form a documentary about global warming, presented by David Attenborough. They were first broadcast in the United Kingdom on 24 May and 1 June 2006 respectively.

Part of a themed season by the BBC entitled “Climate Chaos”, the programmes were produced in conjunction with the Discovery Channel and the Open University.

Are We Changing Planet Earth? – Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Attenborough had maintained a studied silence on the question of carbon dioxide build-up.  This had been spotted by the likes of George Monbiot – 

Since 1985, when I worked in the department that has made most of his programmes, I have pressed the BBC to reveal environmental realities, often with dismal results. In 1995 I spent several months with a producer, developing a novel and imaginative proposal for an environmental series. The producer returned from his meeting with the channel controller in a state of shock. “He just looked at the title and asked ‘Is this environment?’ I said yes. He said, ‘I’ve spent two years trying to get environment off this fucking channel. Why the fuck are you bringing me environment?’”

I later discovered that this response was typical. The controllers weren’t indifferent. They were actively hostile. If you ask me whether the BBC or ExxonMobil has done more to frustrate environmental action in this country, I would say the BBC. 

We all knew that only one person had the power to break this dam. For decades David Attenborough, a former channel controller widely seen as the living embodiment of the BBC, has been able to make any programme he wants. So where, we kept asking, was he? At last, in 2000, he presented an environmental series: State of the Planet.

It was an interesting and watchable series, but it left us with nowhere to go and nothing to do. Only in the last few seconds of the final episode was there a hint that structural forces might be at play: “Real success can only come if there’s a change in our societies, in our economics and in our politics.” But what change? What economics? What politics? He had given us no clues.

David Attenborough has betrayed the living world he loves | George Monbiot | The Guardian

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been so poorly served by the mass media. But then, the mass media is not there to raise the awareness of the masses, now, is it?

What happened next

In 2017 I killed off David Attenborough in this article.

As of May 2025 Attenborough, at 99, is still going.

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

Hudson, M. 2017. 2019: How we blew it again. Peace News, 

Monbiot, G. 2016. Rare Specimen – George Monbiot

Also on this day: 

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

May 23, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger – All Our Yesterdays

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2006,

Australia has the opportunity and responsibility to explore emissions-reduction technologies, writes Grant Thorne.

Thorne, G. (2006) Carbon capture the key to cutting greenhouse gases. The Australian Financial Review, March 17.

“Grant Thorne. Grant Thorne is managing director of Rio Tinto Coal Australia, a major Australian coal producer.”

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 over the previous couple of years, there had been increased talk about CCS in Australia – Coal 21 national plans and Zero Emissions conferences, especially in Queensland. And it was obvious –  or it seemed obvious – that there would be international negotiations to create a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. And so everyone was banging on about CCS. 

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s all just kayfabe. And also, even if they were serious and it worked perfectly, CCS would be a terrifyingly small proportion of overall emissions. And CCS is essentially a way of not talking about reducing energy throughputs in affluent/effluent societies. 

What happened next

By 2009/2010 reality had caught up with CCS in Australia, at least on that occasion. Since then, people have tried to paint Gorgon (given its approval by Labor Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett in 2009) as a success. It isn’t, except insofar as it enables some people not to talk about the need for energy reductions.

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: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

January 12, 2006 – the nuclear option, yet again

Nineteen years ago, on this day, January 12th, 2006,

 “NUCLEAR power will be examined as part of the solution to global warming when ministers from six countries meet this morning in Sydney for talks on climate change…”  

Peatling, S. 2006. Nuclear question looms large at climate change talks. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 January. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that everyone knows there’s going to have to be a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, even though (because) t was far too weak. And so the proponents of action are talking about a stronger emissions trading scheme with fewer loopholes. And the opponents are, of course, talking about “technology.” The Bush and Howard governments had been banging on and creating these entirely fake and stupid bodies that would allow world leaders to stand at a podium in front of a new logo and declare “hydrogen” or “nuclear” or “CCS” or some other nonsense instead of any actual emissions cuts, And this is further examples of that. 

What I think we can learn from this

Technology is always invoked as the get out of jail free card. Enough people find it convenient to believe, or easy enough to pretend to believe.  And the emissions keep climbing.

What happened next

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.

Also on this day: 

Categories
Australia

January 7, 2006 – Bureau of Meteorology with another climate warning

Nineteen years ago, on this day, January 7th, 2006,

RISING food prices, increased bushfire risk and diminishing water supplies are some of the challenges Australia will face as the pace of global warming accelerates. The Bureau of Meteorology delivered its annual climate summary this week, showing that 2005 was Australia’s hottest year on record. The nation’s annual mean temperature for 2005 was 1.09C above the average, well above the previous record of 0.84C in 1998.

Anon. 2006. Dire warming warning; Dearer food, more bushfires, less water on way. Canberra Times 7 January.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Millennium Drought was still going on, and the impacts were piling up, The policy blocking from the Liberals and Nationals continuing, was continuing.

What I think we can learn from this is that there hasn’t really been any scientific debate or doubt about climate since, wow, you can, you can vary it, but the early 90s, maybe (I personally would say late 1970s).

And the messages have been clear enough, but the politicians have been able to do the bidding of the incumbent fossil fuel interests in ignoring these warnings. How so? Because they are not forced to take action that would upset their donors and, frankly, string pullers,Why?  Because there is no engaged enraged civil society. Bcause people have it drilled into them from an early age that they are to “stay in their lane,” that they are to do what their lords and masters tell them to do.

Btw, we will prioritize obedience and sycophancy, because these are rewarded and anything else is punished by the passively or actively, until we’re all dead. What happened next The Bureau of Meteorology has been on the receiving end of various accusations from the nut job denialists, of course. How could they not be? The Millennium drought broke in sort of 2010. A  carbon price, which was basically the smallest part of what an adequate response would look like, became politically impossible in Australia after 2012