Tag: 2007

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 8, 2007 – Great Global Warming Swindle 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 8th, 2007,

Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast on Channel 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

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 climate change had come alive as an issue in the summer of 2006 especially in the UK, thanks to various factors, including “Camp to Climate Action,” (which I was involved in), and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth. Therefore the backlash would have to begin. 

The specific context was that the idiots who made the documentary had form. They had produced something in the late 90s called Against Nature that said, in effect, “Hitler was vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are at least Nazi-adjacent.” 

What I think we can learn from this is that mud and shit will be flung by opponents of action towards stopping us killing ourselves more quickly than we otherwise might. This is especially the case if “stopping our killing ourselves quickly” involves cutting into the profits of rich white people and the so-called liberties of rich white people. It’s not just the rich, of course, I’m being tabloid here. 

What happened next

 The Swindle enabled middle class people who didn’t want to take a stand and change anything to say “Oh, well, there’s still doubt. Scientists are still not sure.” Blah, blah, blah. 

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: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice? 

March 8, 1971 – The Future cancelled for lack of interest…

March 8, 1978 – Minister for Science speaks proudly of Australia’s carbon dioxide monitoring…

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

November 3, 2007 – Second Rising Tide Australia boat blockade

Eighteen years ago, on this day, November 3rd, 2007, there was a  second “Rising Tide Australia” boat blockade 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]

Protestors block coal ships in Newcastle

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Citizen_action_and_protests_against_coal_in_Australia#June_5.2C_2006.2C_and_Nov._3.2C_2007:_Rising_Tide_boat_blockades_of_Newcastle_port

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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 climate change had exploded onto the Australian political scene in September 2006.

The specific context was Rising Tide folks were willing to put their bodies on the line.

What I think we can learn from this – we have known for a long long time what is necessary (but see also Marshall Berman’s great essay about trying to levitate the Pentagon and the sixties…).

“I felt then, and I still believe today, that this was one of the great moments of the ’60s, a moment of communal self-awareness and courage and initiative and growth. But it was a moment of collective failure and pathetic inadequacy as well. Our ritual, in order to strengthen us for the struggle, assured us that we possessed the power to overcome the destructive forces we faced—that we could be, to use another phrase of Mailer’s, “revolutionary alchemists.” And yet, alas, the more seriously we took our confrontation with these demonic powers, the more futile and hollow we were bound to feel—for we knew, after all, that our magic could not work. Even as we closed in on the Pentagon, we knew that computers were being programmed and orders given inside, and bombs were being dropped a half a world away, and people were being killed, and we had no power to stop it. For an hour or so, thousands of us played running games with soldiers and police, trying to outflank them or break through their lines, to make it up the stairs to the building’s front door. (Many succeeded—they would get beaten up savagely later that night—but many more failed, including me: I got teargassed, along with a few hundred other people, and we all tumbled and got pushed down a hill.) Soon it was cold and dark, and the Pentagon became an enormous solid implacable malevolent mass slumbering above and around us, and we stopped running and threw draft cards into piles, and lit them to start small bonfires. And gathered around, still shaky and oddly stoned from the gas, and tried to come to terms with what we had done. We had faced up to some of the black terrors of the night, and called them by their real name; and our deed, like our campfire, had brought us a little light and warmth; but it had done nothing to bring the dawn.”

What happened next – the blockades have continued. So have the exports. So has the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

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 3, 1916 -measurement of ice flow shows climate change 

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

November 3, 2000 – Australian denialists get American scientist to testify about Kyoto Protocol, smear IPCC

Categories
Australia

October 30, 2007 – Albanese grievance debate on Stern Review – “We simply cannot afford to wait any longer”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2007, 

Albanese grievance debate on climate on launch of Stern Review

Grievance Debate Climate Change

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (4.18 p.m.)—My grievance is against the Howard government for its failure to address the greatest challenge facing the global community: climate change.

Today Sir Nicholas Stern launches his report on the economics of climate change. It is a very clear warning that climate change will ruin our environment and our economy if we do not take action. Early action will be far cheaper—perhaps five, 10 or 20 times cheaper. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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 the Australian Labor Party, having lost four federal elections on the trot (1996 1998, 2001, 2004) was looking for a bruise to punch. They’d found it in climate change, which had exploded onto the public’s consciousness in September or so of the previous year.

The specific context was– there was a federal election coming up, and Labor wanted to keep punching.

What I think we can learn from this – talk is cheap when you are in opposition.

What happened next. Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister in 2022 and Australia has become a beacon to the world with its clever, bold and aggressive action to tac…. Oh, look, I can’t, I can’t even…. There is a case to be made for Albo being a bigger climate criminal that John Howard, and that is saying something…

Albo or John Howard? Who is the bigger climate criminal? – 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.

Also on this day: 

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publlshed.

Categories
Activism Coal United Kingdom

October 8, 2007 – Greenpeace attempt to write “Gordon Bin It” on Kingsnorth chimney

Eighteen years ago, on this day, October 8th, 2007,

Environmental campaigners today claimed to have taken over a power station in Kent in a protest designed to stop the prime minister, Gordon Brown, from approving the UK’s first new coal plant in more than 30 years.

Just after 5am this morning, 50 Greenpeace volunteers entered Kingsnorth coal-fired power station. One group immobilised the conveyor belts carrying coal into the plant and chained themselves to the machinery. A second group with enough provisions to last for several days, began scaling a 200m ladder up the chimney which they painted with the words “Gordon Bin It”.

Robin Oakley, a senior energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the protest posed no risk to the energy supply.

“Taking one power station off the national grid will not lead to a blackout,” he stressed. “There is plenty of spare supply in the system.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/08/climatechange.energy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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, as per previous blog post, on October 6, Greenpeace had been occupying things since its earliest days. Meanwhile, the Climate Change Act was going through parliament and all eyes were on Copenhagen the following year as one of the many “last chances to save the Earth.”

The specific context was that the UK government of Gordon Brown was trying to sell the idea of coal-fired power plants that were “capture ready”. Ed Miliband not having one of his finest hours….

What I think we can learn from this – some forms of symbolic non-violent direct action, well-timed and executed can “work.”

What happened next

In September 2008…

“Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage during a protest over coal-fired power.

The activists were charged with causing £30,000 of damage after they scaled Kingsnorth power station in Hoo, Kent.

At Maidstone Crown Court Judge David Caddick said the jury had to examine whether protesters had a lawful excuse.”

BBC NEWS | England | Kent | Power station protesters cleared

The first CCS competition fizzled out in late 2011.

Coal was pushed out of the UK Grid from 2014 onwards. If Greenpeace and others had not acted, this would not have 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: 

October 8, 1959 – Shell says “nothing to see here” on carbon dioxide build-up 

October 8, 1988 – Aussie poet and activist Judith Wright in final speech, warns of environmental problems ahead…

Categories
Activism Kyoto Protocol United States of America

September 27, 2007 – Kyoto Inaction Protest

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 27th, 2007,

2007 Kyoto Protocol Inaction Demonstration, Washington D.C.

Four environmental organizations including Greenpeace, Oil Change International, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, staged a protest against climate change inaction and the Bush Administration’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Demonstrators gathered outside the State Department, where Bush was (ironically) holding an international meeting on climate change. Nearly 50 activists, including Greenpeace Executive Director John Passacantando, were arrested on civil disobedience charges, i.e. refusal to disperse.

Read more: http://www.mensjournal.com/travel/events/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-protests-in-the-u-s-20140919#ixzz3J9SD6WJ4

and more here – https://climateandcapitalism.com/2007/09/23/dc-rally-to-protest-bush-climate-change-conference/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 US had signed up to the UNFCCC treaty in 1992, having made sure – via threatening to boycott the Earth Summit – that the text contained no commitments for reductions of emissions.

The specific context was that there was a huge industry lobbying effort in the run-up to the Kyoto conference (to be held in December 1997) to ensure that profits would not be harmed.  This effort by the green groups is part of the fight.

What I think we can learn from this – the green groups are always outspent, of course, and are up against the Western belief that “some technology will turn up at the last minute…”

What happened next – the Kyoto conference delivered a weak protocol, which the US pulled out of in 2001.  There was then an effort to create a sequel, in Copenhagen in 2009. That failed. Then, in 2015 the world-saving “Paris Agreement”, oh yes.

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 27, 1962 – “Silent Spring” published as a book

September 27, 1988 – Margaret Thatcher comes out as a lentil-eating greenie…

September 27, 1988 – UNEP should become world eco-regime

September 27, 1995 – Greenhouse progress in Australia? None. Zip. Zero.

Categories
Australia

September 23, 2007 – “Climate “clever” fools no-one…

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 23rd, 2007,

After ten years of being a climate sceptic, John Howard begrudgingly pronounced himself a climate change realist. But while the rhetoric has changed, Government policy hasn’t. Australia’s greenhouse pollution continues to soar as the renewables industry slowly but surely packs its bags and heads overseas. Meanwhile the coal industry continues to expand with the help of massive public subsidies.

Anon, 2007. Govt climate ad campaign not so clever. Greenpeace 23 September.

http://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/govt-climate-ad-campaign-not-so-clever/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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 Australian policymakers had been shitting on climate policy since the beginning.

The specific context was that Prime Minister John Howard, an enemy of sanity on climate, had been forced, in late 2006, to attempt a “reverse ferret” on climate policy. He’d appointed a panel to produce the “Shergold Report” on emissions trading. This convinced no-one, and with an election coming what could be more natural than to spend taxpayers’ money to propagandise them.

What I think we can learn from this. Stupid Evil is gonna Stupid Evil, and expect a subsidy to Stupid Evil from the public. And mostly, Stupid Evil gets what it wants.

What happened next – Howard lost the November 2007 election and, indeed, 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: 

September 23, 1986 -Joe Biden suggests urgent #climate action…

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

September 23, 2014 – Obama gives a wonderful speech about climate change. We are saved. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

August 7, 2007 – Cate Blanchett asks “Who on Earth Cares”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 7th, 2007, 

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) launched a new campaign – Who On Earth Cares – with Cate Blanchett as its ambassador, aiming to provide online community spaces for people to show they care about climate change in Australia, and who want to see Australia reduce its greenhouse pollution.

Cate Blanchett and Don Henry on Sunrise

https://www.treehugger.com/culture/who-on-earth-cares-cate-blanchett-does.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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 ACF had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up as a Real Problem since the early 1980s, but only began campaigning on it in the late 1980s (for very understandable reasons). They’d done really good work (within the confines of what is ‘possible’) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the times change – the Liberals decided they’d been “betrayed” and Labor began to resent the rise of the Greens.

The specific context was that in late 2006 the climate issue had exploded onto the scene in Australia, and ACF hoped to develop pressure around this, especially as there was an election coming up…

What I think we can learn from this – there are waves of attention and inattention. During a wave you might get some promises of action. Whether you get action once the inattention kicks in depends on what kind of infrastructure of monitoring and pressure you have (or haven’t) built.

What happened next – Blanchett also, in 2011, fronted some adverts in support of Gillard’s carbon price – the “Say Yes” campaign. This, predictably, earned her the moniker “Carbon Cate” from the Murdoch press.

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 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Cartoons

June 25, 2007 – “what would you liked to have been?”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, June 25th, 2008,

 The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that we were in the midst of the second Big Wave of climate awareness (the first one had been 1988-1992).  Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had come out, won an Oscar. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC had come out.  Talk of a successor to the (piss-weak) Kyoto Protocol was afoot.  Climate camps were being held.  There was still a sort of belief that things might be if not turned around, then, the killer blows softened (not all of us believed that, of course).

What I think we can learn from this We knew of our failure.  And here we are.

What happened next: More great cartoons got published. And the emissions climbed. 

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 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

May 10, 2007 – Future Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan “punches the Liberal bruise” on climate and emissions trading

Eighteen Years ago, on this day, May 10th, 2007, the Australian Labor Party’s Treasury guy, Wayne Swan, makes fun of Peter Costello because the latter acquiesced, four years previousy, in the destruction of an emissions trading scheme that the entire LNP cabinet had been okay with. Well, entire but for one guy – Prime Minister John Howard…. By 2007 this was perfect ammunition for Kevin Rudd and his cronies, who were using climate as a stick to beat Howard with.

10 May 2007 Swan versus Costello in Parliament on the 2003 emissions trading scheme

Mr SWAN (2:11 PM) —My question is directed to the Treasurer, and I refer him to his interview on The 7.30 Report on the ABC on budget night where he refused to answer a question on past Treasury advice on carbon trading.

Government members interjecting—


The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right will come to order.


Mr SWAN —It was a spectacular performance by the Treasurer.


The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley will commence his question again, and he will be heard.


Mr SWAN —I refer the Treasurer to his interview on The 7.30 Report on budget night where he refused to answer a question on past Treasury advice on carbon trading. Can the Treasurer confirm that the government rejected a 2003 cabinet submission on emissions trading? Is this why Dr Henry, the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, said he wished he had been listened to more attentively on climate change? Does the Treasurer believe the last four years is an unacceptable delay or an acceptable delay?


Mr COSTELLO (Treasurer) —The government is about to receive a report on emissions trading prepared by an interdepartmental group which senior members of the Treasury have been participating in. I look forward to receiving that. As soon as the government receives that report it will announce its response, and I expect that to be a good response.


Ms George —You won’t get rolled this time like you did last time.


Mr COSTELLO —Oh, yes, the former ACTU president comes in on cue. There is a former ACTU president over there, one over here, one over there and another one to come.


Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The Treasurer said it is on his desk. Will we have to wait four years to see it?


Mr COSTELLO —Labor might regard Rod Eddington as ‘another voice’, but it regards the ACTU as a multiple chorus. I am going to go on and make another point about receiving the report on the carbon emissions trading scheme. This government will actually receive the report before it announces its policy, and it will actually consider the consequences of various emissions targets before it names that policy which it will undertake. That is quite different from the Labor approach, which was to name an emissions target. This is what the Leader of the Opposition did: he named an emissions target and then he set up an inquiry to figure out what it would mean. He said that he was going to have this target by 2050 and then he said to Ross Garnaut, ‘Go and find out what the effect would be.’ I tell you this: when you are dealing with economic consequences, when you are dealing with people’s lives, it is a much better principle to find out what the effect of your policies will be before you adopt them—and that is what this government will be doing.


The SPEAKER —Has the Treasurer completed his answer?


Mr COSTELLO —Yes.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2007-05-10%2F0080%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in late 2006 the climate issue had again broken through in Australia. Everyone had to pretend that they had always cared, and always taken appropriate action. John Howard’s track record of pure evil asshole-ness made this especially difficult for him, and he couldn’t manage it.

What I think we can learn from this. Again, it’s all kayfabe.There are plot-lines and story arcs, but the main through-line is that nobody is going to risk their career etc by doing the “right” thing, especially when that won’t matter.

What happened next is that the Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd won the 2007 Federal election and then managed to screw the pooch on climate so bad that – well, Australia is doomed. But was anyway – the damage was done by 1995, and there’s been no coming back…

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 10, 1931 – Daily Oregonian mentioning greenhouse…. – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1968 – “The Age of Effluence” says Time Magazine. C02 build-up mentioned… – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1978 – Women told that by 2000 “we will be frantically searching for alternatives to coal.”

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker

Categories
Australia Energy

April 13, 2007 – smart meters are gonna save us…

Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, 2007, Australian governments said smart-metering was just round the corner,

By April 2007 there was formal agreement by COAG to a national mandated rollout of electricity smart meters to begin by the end of 2008, in locations where an economic case could be made, as summarised in the 13th April 2007 COAG Meeting Communique:

‘‘COAG. . . endorsed a staged approach for the national mandated roll out of electricity smart meters to areas where benefits outweigh costs, as indicated by the results of the cost-benefit analysis which will be completed by the end of 2007.” [COAG (2007): 1]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone in Australia (okay, some people, but a little hyperbole is okay) was running around either actually caring or – more commonly – pretending to care about Saving The World.  In late 2006, as if a switch had been flicked, the issue had broken through, and by December even arch-blocker Prime Minister John Howard had been forced into a U-turn. So here we have various government types having to say they’re going to act. And “smart meters” are part of that whole neo-liberal efficiency discourse, that sorta sounds okay until you think how it comes up against Jevons Paradox, techno-failure and the use of technology to surveil populations.

What I think we can learn from this

Policies can be announced. Doesn’t mean they’re gonna get implemented.

What happened next

Fast forward to November 2024-

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has announced a final rule requiring smart meters to be deployed across the National Electricity Market (NEM) by 2030.  

This reform aims to modernise Australia’s energy system and accelerate the transition to renewable energy. 

Smart meters are essential for enabling a connected, efficient energy system and achieving net zero targets. 

The reforms include: 

  • faster smart meter deployment to help households and businesses access savings and energy benefits sooner 
  • improving network access to important power quality data for better network management, reduced costs and improved safety. 

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

(Lovell, 2017:103) Lovell, H. 2017. Mobile policies and policy streams: The case of smart metering policy in Australia. Geoforum, 81, pp.100-108.

Also on this day: 

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

April 13, 1992 – Denialist tosh – “The origins of the alleged scientific consensus”

April 13, 2011 – GE and others say Gillard is on right track