Tag: 2006

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

January 29, 2006 – Attempts to gag James Hansen revealed

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.