Tag: 2007

Categories
Australia

April 30, 2007 – Rudd hires Garnaut

Seventeen years ago, on this day, April 30th, 2007, new Leader of the Opposition Kevin Rudd hires an economist…

On 30 April 2007, the leader of the federal opposition Australian Labor Party, Kevin Rudd,(along with the state and territory governments) engaged world renowned economist Professor Ross Garnaut to conduct a wide ranging review into the effects of climate change on Australia and its economy (Garnaut 2008).

(Rice and Martin, 2016:48)

and

BRISBANE, April 30 AAP – The federal opposition has commissioned an economics professor to head a Stern-type review into the impact of climate change on Australia’s future.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd announced the Garnaut Climate Change Review in Brisbane today, saying it would outline the threat to the country’s economic prosperity and investigate mitigation strategies.

It will be headed by Australian National University economics Professor Ross Garnaut, who will hand down interim findings mid next year, and a completed report by October 2008.

Marszalek, J. 2007 Fed: Opposition commissions Australia’s own climate report. Australian Associated Press General News, April 30

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that new opposition leader Kevin Rudd was using climate as a stick to beat John Howard with, in much the same way that the UK Conservative leader David Cameron was using climate issue as a way to detoxify the Tory brand at more or less the same time. 

The broader context was that there had been multiple efforts to get emissions trading schemes going. Two had happened at the federal level in 200- and 2003, defeated by Tim Nick Minchin and John Howard, respectively. And also state led States led Emissions Trading had been on the agenda. So for example, especially the Victorian and New South Wales Premiers Bob Carr, leading the charge. And Garnautr who had been involved in some of that was a well respected economist who’d worked for Hawke on opening up the Australian economy, ie, reducing tariff barriers. 

What we learn is that policy might be good or bad, but it gets used as a blunt instrument in political wars to its cost. Because once it becomes part of political war, implementation is fragile and reversal is possible. That’s what happened in this case. (this is not an argument for pas devant les enfants technocracy, btw). 

What happened next Garnaut produced his final report rather in the middle of the following year, but by that time, Rudd as prime minister had set up a parallel process and Garnaut was kind of on the outer. The parallel process gave us the CPRS bless it and you know, the rest. 

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 30, 1985 – New York Times reports C02 not the only greenhouse problem

April 30, 2001 – Dick Cheney predicts 1000 new power plants

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

March 26, 2007 – Lavoisier Group lay into CCS

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 26th, 2007, the broken clocks at the Lavoisier Group (a denialist outfit) were right about CCS, with an article in the Brisbane Courier Mail denouncing it as a boondoggle that would not ‘work’ but would waste a lot of money.

Last month Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd announced Labor’s National Clean Coal Initiative.

Roughly speaking, the term clean coal refers to various technologies for removing carbon dioxide from coal when it is used to generate electricity, both before and after combustion occurs. The term encompasses carbon capture and storage technologies.

Rudd’s policy commits $500 million of taxpayer funds on the development of these technologies, with the proviso that each taxpayer dollar must be matched by two private sector dollars.

Rudd also proclaimed that Labor would establish an emissions trading scheme, set renewable energy targets, develop plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, convene a summit on climate change and ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Apart from ratifying an obsolete international treaty and organising yet another Canberra talkfest, Labor’s policy of subsidising corporations, making grandiose plans and setting impressive-sounding targets is eerily similar to existing Government policy.

The Howard Government happily boasts about Australia meeting its Kyoto targets and has already set up a taskforce to examine emissions trading schemes.

Its Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund has committed taxpayer funds of $500 million for research, with the proviso that each taxpayer dollar must be matched by—you guessed it—two private sector dollars. Additional funding is planned for future years.

Robson, A. 2007. Clean coal is all hot air. Courier Mail, March 26

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a few days before the ACTU had been in the news, promoting CCS. And everyone was talking about CCS; the Lavoisier Group were keen to try to debunk it. 

What we learn from this is that just because they’re climate denialists and idiots, doesn’t mean they’re wrong about the plausibility of a technology, even if it is being pushed as a solution for a problem that they don’t believe exists. Stopped clocks right twice a day and all that. 

What happened next The Lavoisier Group, which was essentially Ray Evans and his mates funded by Hugh Morgan, kept going and were pretty effective at what they did. This was also in the lead up to Labor Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd‘s conference in Parliament as opposition leader on March 31 2007 when he said that “climate change is the great moral challenge of our time.” 

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 26, 1979 – Exxon meets a climate scientist

March 26, 1993 – UK government to ratify climate treaty

Categories
Australia

March 22, 2007 – Unions talk good game on climate

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 22nd, 2007, all the right words get said by the Australian unions.

The ACTU has called for sweeping national reforms across transport, mining, agriculture, construction, education and public health to tackle climate change and generate new jobs. The comprehensive green action plan will increase pressure on federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd to adopt a more radical climate change policy as Labor prepares for next month’s national conference. Reforms outlined in the ACTU’s newly endorsed climate change strategy include government subsidies for energy efficient retrofitting of buildings, new mandatory green building codes for all commercial buildings, large-scale reuse of treated effluent, improved vehicle fuel efficiency and greater use of shipping to cut national transport emissions. ACTU secretary Greg Combet described climate change as ”the pre-eminent policy challenge of our time”, and urged industry to ”face up to global warming and be accountable for investing in sustainable jobs rather than raising the fear of job losses and expecting government handouts”.

Beeby, R. 2007. Union pressure on climate. Canberra Times, 22 March. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that everyone in Australia was being performatively concerned about climate change since about September of the previous year. To be fair, the ACTU had been wringing their hands on climate since 1989. But they had allowed – fatally – the mining union to be in charge of energy policy, which meant very weak climate policy, very pro-fossil fuels climate policy. And by now, the ACTU was messing around with the whole idea of carbon capture and storage, see Coal21, etc. And this was the latest iteration of that. 

What we learn is that trade unions are really good on workers rights, and essential in my opinion, and can be incredibly innovative, and be engines of democracy. But they can also be unhappily on climate, largely crap; not all of them all of the time, but too many of them most of the time. And the books I’ve read, and the articles I’ve read, are a little bit too hagiographic for my liking. 

What happened next? Kevin Rudd, once he became prime minister, threw insane quantities of taxpayers’ money at the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, for which there’s virtually nothing to show. 

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 22, 1960 – US Television warning of carbon dioxide build up, courtesy Athelstan Spilhaus…

March 22, 2012 – flash mobs and repertoire exhaustion

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 14, 2007 – Australian Treasury eyeroll about politicians on #climate, (scoop by Laura Tingle).

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 14th, 2007, civil servants get caught out despairing of their political “masters.”

The country’s most senior economic bureaucrat has delivered a scathing assessment of the federal government’s water and climate-change policies and warned his department to be vigilant against the “greater than usual risk of the development of policy proposals that are, frankly, bad” in the lead-up to the federal election.

In a speech to an internal Treasury forum, obtained by The Australian Financial Review, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry confirmed his department had little influence in the development of the government’s recent $10 billion water package, and expressed his regret that its advice both on water and climate change had not been followed in recent years.

The revelations came as the government was on the defensive yesterday about its failure to address climate change in its latest intergenerational report.

Dr Henry’s speech, in which he reviewed Treasury’s achievements and challenges, was given to an internal biannual departmental forum at Canberra’s Hyatt Hotel on March 14.

He noted that the department had “worked hard to develop frameworks for the consideration of water reform and climate-change policy”.

“All of us would wish that we had been listened to more attentively over the past several years in both of these areas. There is no doubt that policy outcomes would have been far superior had our views been more influential,” he said.

2007 Tingle, L. 2007. Revealed: Treasury chief’s blast at government policy. The Australian Financial Review, 4 April, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Treasury officials had been having to sit politely for a decade while various “economically efficient” emissions trading schemes were proposed. Two had been put before cabinet in 2000 and 2003, only to be shut down. In the first case by Nick Minchin the second by John Howard alone. And of course, the Shergold report process was underway at this point, because Howard had done a save-my-skin U-turn. Also, Kevin Rudd was banging the drum. And it looked like the state-based Emissions Trading might come back, who knew for sure. And so hardly surprising that top mandarin,  who actually knew one end of a spreadsheet from another, might have a little private exasperation. 

What we can learn is that civil servants often have to just grit their teeth as really stupid. elected members run the place – which is of course how it should be. On  tap not on top and all that crap. 

What happened next? The Shergold report was released in May 2007, but convinced no one. Aong came Keivin Rudd who then completely fucked up the introduction of the emissions trading schemes. He got toppled by Julia Gillard and, well, alright you know the rest. 

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 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

 March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage

February 9, 2007 – Virgin on the ridiculous

Seventeen years ago, on this day, February 9th, 2007, Richard Branson waved his cheque book around for a bit of planet saving…

The Virgin Earth Challenge was a competition offering a $25 million prize for whoever could demonstrate a commercially viable design which results in the permanent removal of greenhouse gases out of the Earth’s atmosphere to contribute materially in global warming avoidance.[1] The prize was conceived by Richard Branson, and was announced in London on 9 February 2007 by Branson and former US Vice President Al Gore.[2]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth had come out. The first Climate Camp had happened. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC had just come out. And everyone was wanting to say that they were going to save the world. Whether it was the “grassroots” activists,  the billionaires or the States or the technology people. And so these sorts of competitions were announced. 

What we learn is that everyone wants to feel like they’re the good guy, even if they own an airline. 

What happened next? Oddly, the money never got dispersed. And CCS still hasn’t 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: 

February 9, 1956 – Scientists puzzle over where the carbon dioxide is going….

Feb 9, 2014 –  A Farage-o of nonsense about climate change

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 6, 2007 – Rudd taunts Howard on 2003 ETS decision

On this day, February 6 2007 new Labor leade Kevin Rudd had asked Prime Minister John Howard if a submission proposing an emission trading scheme had gone before cabinet in August 2003 and if that proposal was rejected.

Rudd – and frankly everyone else – knew the answer was “yes”. It had been extensively reported, since at least 2004. In August 2003, Howard had met with some business mates and killed off the Cabinet proposal (which the entire Cabinet, including Joe Hockey, Peter Costello etc were behind). See here – August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Rudd was just trying to embarrass Howard, who had a couple of months before performed a screeching U-turn and appointed Peter Shergold (civil servant) and some business cronies to look at an an ETS.

What we learn – it was all theatre

What happened next. Howard’s U-turn made him look weak rather than caring, and he was swept from power. Kevin Rudd then saved the day (subs, please check).

Categories
technosalvationism United States of America

January 3, 2007 – Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, says Union of Concerned Scientists

Seventeen years ago, on this day, January 3rd, 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists released a damning report called “Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air” about ExxonMobil and its tactics…

And you can read a typically sane and not-unhinged response, which has aged so very well indeed, here. Or you could if it weren’t a mysteriously dead link, and seems to have been removed from the “website” of the nutjobs.

http://humanevents.com/2007/05/08/liberal-scientists-lead-jihad-against-globalwarming-skeptics/

Could it be that they have realised that it’s not a good look?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush Jr. had already been a massive pain in the ass on environment issues. Or, to be more accurate, he allowed the gang that was controlling him to run riot in a more slightly more subtle way than had happened under Reagan. And there had been repeated exposes and reports on the tactics and subterfuge used by Bush. This report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which had been set up in the tumult of the late 60s, was one among many. And probably had an eye on the fact that the negotiations in Bali in December of 2007, had been earmarked as creating “the Roadmap to Copenhagen.” There’s always a new roadmap path, etc. And they all prove to be delusions. 

What we can learn, you can expose, the emperor has been naked, you can pull back the curtain and show the guy who was screaming at you not to look at him. And it doesn’t change anything. Because the audience is just that – spectating. Only if we had active social movement organisations, capable of sustaining pressure and defending themselves against co-optation, repression and exhaustion might – and I underscore the word might – we have gotten somewhere. But we didn’t. And now we won’t. 

What happened next? Bush was replaced with Obama. Obama made one attempt to get through some pretty weak climate legislation, and then refused to spend any more political capital on the issue. But he made some fine speeches. So that’s alright then. 

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 3, 1984 – US report on energy transition to combat climate released.

Jan 3, 1992 – Greenpeace vs POTUS on Climate Change

Categories
Australia

October 12, 2007 – Judge grants mining licence, doubts climate change

Fifteen years ago, on this day, October 12, 2007, Queensland is Queensland, again…

The presiding member handed down his decision on 15 February 2007, dismissing QCC’s objections and recommending the applications for the mines be granted without any conditions sought by QCC or any conditions addressing greenhouse gas emissions. He doubted the fact that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions were contributing to climate change and pose a severe threat to the environment.

(McGrath, 2007: 225)

There was an appeal, President McMurdo, with whom Holms JA and Mackenzie J agreed, found that the fact President Koppenhol relied upon material doubting the existence of anthropogenic climate change, ‘in the circumstances… amounted to a denial of natural justice to QCC.’

The Court of Appeal ordered the decision to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Land Court (which had assumed jurisdiction for mining objections by the time the appeal was decided) to be determined according to law.

Six hours after the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 12 October 2007, the Queensland Premier and Minister for Mines announced the Queensland Government would enact special legislation to ‘ensure the coal mine’s future’.

(McGrath, 2007: 226)

Within hours of the Queensland Court of Appeal handing down its decision, the State’s Premier, Anna Bligh, announced her government would legislate in Xstrata’s favour – an announcement all the more striking because Xstrata had just been the beneficiary of similar legislation in the Northern Territory after the Territory Supreme Court upheld a challenge by the Northern Land Council against the Territory government’s approval of an expansion of Xstrata’s McArthur River zinc mine. Despite the prevalence of special legislation in Australia approving major projects without adequate environmental scrutiny or proper public participation, Xstrata set a record in being the beneficiary of two such Acts in five months.

(Bonyhady, 2007: 23)

Government to legislate to ensure coal mine’s future. Media Statement from Premier Anna Bligh and Minister for Mines Geoff Wilson, 12 October 2007.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Queensland governments of any political persuasion have a long and sordid history of siding with developers and the white shoe brigade. Nothing really much changes whoever’s in government. And of course governments are able to use the police forces as attack dogs and the court system as usually their rubber stamp.

What I think we can learn from this

The game is the game and the game is rigged.

What happened next

 The Queensland government has kept going into that for big infrastructure projects. 

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

See also Andrew McGahan Last Drinks…

Categories
United States of America

September 6, 2007 – “The Future of Coal under Cap and Trade” hearings…

Sixteen years ago, on this day, September 6, 2007, some American congressmen hold a hearing about what might be done…

2007 “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing

As Congress turns its eye toward global warming legislation this fall, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will host Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, the CEO of American Electric Power, and other experts for a hearing exploring how to maintain coal as part of the energy mix for America and the world, while avoiding dangerous global warming. Chairman Markey and the rest of the Select Committee will learn about advanced coal technologies like carbon capture and storage, and how a framework for cutting emissions could affect the development and deployment of this technology and the future of coal-fired power plants.

WHAT: “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing

WHERE: 2172 Rayburn House Office Building and on the web at globalwarming.house.gov

WHEN: Sept 6, 2007, 9:30 AM

WHO:

Governor Dave Freudenthal, Wyoming

Michael Morris, Chairman and CEO, American Electric Power

Carl Bauer, Director, Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory

David Hawkins, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center

Robert Sussman, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP

Stuart Dalton, Director for the Generation Sector, Electric Power Research Institute

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the European Union had started an Emissions Trading Scheme. There was a regional scheme in the United States with if I recall rightly seven or eight north-eastern states and the idea and expectation was that whoever became President in 2008 there would be space for a national scheme potentially. And therefore these sorts of “what if, what shape” events were being held in what MSA users would call the policy stream.

What I think we can learn from this is that people anticipate the near future and want to be ready for it so they can get rich. And that’s what so much of carbon pricing has been about – not actually reducing emissions, because if you wanted to reduce emissions you would do different things and you would have to start doing them now rather than letting the so-called market which you’re busy creating decide.

What happened next

The 2009 effort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act to get emissions trading something Waxman – Leigh bill was defeated narrowly Obama basically gave up and then f***** off to Copenhagen for the photo op. 

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 United States of America

August 13, 2007 –  Newsweek nails denialists

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 13, 2007, the US publication Newsweek, which had been reporting on carbon dioxide build-up since 1953, had a very good report on the tactics of the denialists, under the clever title “The Truth about Denial.”

“Organisations and companies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil emphasise conservative climate change scenarios and highlight the potential economic costs of stricter controls” (Sharon Begley, “The Truth about Denial”, Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Vale Sharon Begley – https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/17/sharon-begley-path-breaking-science-journalist-dies/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was absolutely back on the agenda with Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” and the fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. There was renewed vigour in the international process with lots of talk about what would replace the Kyoto Protocol. And therefore, the denialists were up to their old tricks. Sharon Begley’s article is a good summation of how and why they do what they do. 

What I think we can learn from this

Mainstream press articles can often give you the facts you need. You may need to bolt on a decent theoretical framework, but serious mainstream media (often the business press is best) can give you a bunch of worthwhile facts to be going on with.

Btw, from reading this article, it is a tolerably accurate picture of incumbents’ behaviour. In any democratic society (a) these tactics would be taughtf in school so people could defend their minds against the onslaught  and (b) of course, you would not need to be taught it because there would laws and structures that prevented the ownership of the government by concentrated economic interests. 

What happened next

The denial kept going, becoming a hydra and a T1000 at the same time.

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.