Some (Trot-inspired/’led’) activists held a “Climate caravan” thing in the UK. Gaia help us.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was xxxppm. As of 2026, 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 by 2008 exhaustion was setting in among climate activists. They’d been rallying, camping, marching for a couple of years (longer for some) and although there was the promise of a Climate Change Act (yay), nobody held out much hope for the sort of fundamental transformational change that was needed.
What I think we can learn from this – most upsurges in activity/ concern last two or three years (less if a pandemic gets in the way).
What happened next – after Copenhagen the movement was basically gone like a fist when you open your palm, give or take a couple of dead-cat bounces.
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
FLINDERS MP Greg Hunt joined Australia’s oldest parachutist, Jim Brierley, in a parachute jump over Tooradin at the weekend to highlight the freefall of Australia’s solar industry.
83-year-old Mr Brierley lives at Phillip Island in the Flinders electorate and wrote to Mr Hunt earlier this year, inviting him to skydive with the Tooradin-based Commando Skydivers.
Mr Hunt accepted the invitation immediately.
“I leapt at the chance. I had done a static-line parachute jump – where the parachute opens automatically – when I was about 17 but had always wanted to experience a skydive,” he said.
Mr Hunt, who made the jump with tandem master Dave Boulter, described the experience as “sheer exhilaration”.
“We were lucky in that the day was pretty overcast but we managed to find a break in the clouds that lasted just long enough for me to make the jump.
“We jumped from 7000 feet, which was above the cloud level, and dived through the clouds for about 20 seconds before we activated the parachute. Twenty seconds doesn’t sound like a long time but it’s an eternity when you are hurtling towards the ground at something like 120 miles an hour. It is sheer exhilaration. I loved every second of it.
“Jim jumped out of the plane just before me and made an effortless landing, He is an amazing gentleman and an inspiration to us all.”
Mr Hunt used the jump to highlight the plight of the solar panel industry which he said has been sent into freefall since the Rudd Government imposed a means test on the popular solar panel rebate scheme.
BERNARD KEANE ON “PERPETUAL PRESENT” AND PETER GARRETT
Oddly, this is the Greg Hunt who throughout 2008 opportunistically joined the Greens in bagging Garrett for not rolling the solar panels program out quickly enough, after Garrett introduced a means test on the solar panel rebate to slow the remarkable demand for the program. In June 2008, Hunt went skydiving — anyone remember that? — to demonstrate that the solar industry was in “freefall — but unlike me it doesn’t have a soft landing ahead of it”.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 385ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that Australian political elites had been aware of the carbon dioxide problem since the 1970s but had not really done anything until forced to by a combination of scientific lobbying and especially public pressure, which exploded in 1988. And in 1990 a student, I think, at University of Melbourne, did his honours thesis on carbon pricing, and 18 years later, that student was the shadow Environment Minister Greg Hunt,
The specific context was that there had been fierce battles over Emissions Trading/ putting a price on carbon dioxide. And from the end of 2006 onwards, there had been running open battles. By mid 2008 the conservative Party, the Liberal party’s fragile consensus on the need to respond to carbon dioxide build up was beginning to fracture. They were still under the leadership, such as it was of Brendan Nelson, but Malcolm Turnbull was waiting in the wings as leader of the opposition.
What I think we can learn is this: these stupid stunts, they are not cupid stunts, but something else we learned that politicians will do pretty much anything for a headline.
Malcolm Turnbull became leader of the opposition and tried to forge some sort of deal with Kevin Rudd, the Labor Prime Minister. But Rudd was too much enjoying watching Turnbull twist in the wind, and so carbon pricing did not get passed, and Tony Abbott became leader of the opposition, and then, God help us, Prime Minister. And was a complete failure, but he can point to having abolished the carbon price as his signal achievement. Hunt was Minister for the Environment in this and brought about a shadow Emissions Trading Scheme. (See Leonore Taylor in the Guardian for more on this).
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
The World’s (then) “largest CO2 storage demo plant” opens in Victoria.
THE launch of Australia’s first carbon dioxide storage demonstration project is a “key strategic initiative in the global challenge of addressing climate change”, according to Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitchell Hooke.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that carbon capture and storage had first been proposed as a solution – a partial solution – to carbon dioxide build up in the mid 1970s by an Italian physicist, Cesar Marchetti, as part of the whole IASSA attempt to offer solutions.
The specific context was that was10 years previously, in the late 1990s the GEODISC programme had gotten underway, and in 2001 the Prime Minister’s Science, Economics and Industry Council then chaired by Roy Batterham, (who was part time also the chief technology officer for Rio Tinto), had put forward CCS as a useful way of side-stepping climate policy and the need for behaviour change and societal transformation. There had been further insane promises about CCS during the 2000s and then in 2008 we see this pilot project begin.
What I think we can learn from this is that these fantasy technologies have a long history, and it’s not one of success.
What happened next: Otway kept storing trivial amounts of CO2 and it’s not clear to me that any meaningful lessons were learned. But I’m not a geologist. The big CCS project in Australia is Gorgon as per Chevron, and you can read about its stunning world changing successes here.
Fifty years ago, on this day, March 18th 2008, Guy Pearse made his submission to the Garnaut Review, “Protecting Australia’s new climate change response from the Climate mafia”.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Australian political elites have been receiving warnings about carbon dioxide build up, really, since 1986, which would be a good date to start.
I mean, obviously there’s also stuff in the late 1970s and the Office of National Assessments fossil fuels in the greenhouse, though it’s not clear to me how that was distributed and who talked about it.
National Party senators were also talking about the carbon dioxide problem as well in the early 1980s…
Then, to understand this story, you have to understand that Guy Pearse, (not the actor), had been a young Liberal staffer and speech writer who had gone to the States and then ended up working on briefly, on the Al Gore campaign rather than Republicans in ‘88 because he was switched on to environment and especially climate.
But the Liberal Party was not welcoming place for people concerned about environment and climate, in part, because of the Dolchstuss myth, the stab in the back from 1990.
Pearse had then been working as a lobbyist, and realised that lots of his friends were busy undermining climate policy, in the agriculture, tourism, et cetera, positions.
He had then done a PhD part time where he basically interviewed his friends and constructed a really brilliant PhD about this. He had done this PhD at Australian National University and with Clive Hamilton as one of his supervisors. Hamilton had already written a book called Running from the Storm about climate policy.
And Pearse’s work had been exposed to the public in 2006 thanks to an ABC Four Corners documentary on the greenhouse mafia.
The specific context was that alongside all of this in late 2006 partly with thanks to things like the Four Corners documentary, the climate issue had exploded into public consciousness and the new Labor leader of the opposition, Kevin Rudd was using Iraq and a scandal about grain supplies and climate change as his two principal sticks with which to beat long-serving Prime Minister John Howard.
And one of Rudd’s stunts was to ask economist Ross Garnaut to write a report about the economics of climate change to inform whatever policy degree the Rudd Government, if it were to happen, would put in place. So this was called the Garnaut Review, and here we see Guy Pearse trying to drop some truth bombs.
But “you people can’t handle the truth,” etc, etc.
What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want to understand a document like this, you have to understand the back story. That takes time and there’s only so many hours in the day. But enough whining about methodology!
What else we learn is that Australian policy elites have been grappling with the climate problem with some success. If your success metric is how to make it look like you’re taking action without taking action.
That has become more difficult over time, because people get wise, get – you can call it “cynical”, – but I would call it sensible.
What happened next
Garnaut produced his report, but it was sidelined because he was going to demand too much of Rudd, who didn’t want to upset rich donors, etc. Rudd got toppled and Garnaut got brought back to inform Gillard’s climate policy process. Pearse kept writing about it for a while, but I think eventually realised that it was a lost cause.
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.
Seventeen years ago today, December 15 2008, the late John Vidal writes up the facts in an article titled “Those Kingsnorth police injuries in full: six insect bites and a toothache”
When climate camp protesters descended on the site of the Kingsnorth power station for a week-long summer demonstration, the scale of the police operation to cope with them was enormous.
Police were accused of using aggressive tactics, confiscating everything from toilet rolls and board games to generators and hammers. But ministers justified what they called the “proportionate” £5.9m cost of the operation, pointing out that 70 officers had been injured in the course of their duties.
But data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act puts a rather different slant on the nature of those injuries, disclosing that not one was sustained in clashes with demonstrators.
Papers acquired by the Liberal Democrats via Freedom of Information requests show that the 1,500 officers policing the Kingsnorth climate camp near the Medway estuary in Kent, suffered only 12 reportable injuries during the protest during August.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 those agitating for crazy ideas, like (checks notes) an end to slavery, votes, votes for women etc etc are always ignored, and once they can’t be ignored are repressed and smeared. That’s just the way it is.
The specific context was that Climate Camp had been allowed to run for two years already (the police were well aware of the plans to take the Drax site, since those discussions were held in the flat of one of the Spycops). Probably by now they were getting bored, and the SDS was being closed down. So, time to up the harassment (confiscating board games, blasting music at 3am etc etc) and also try to smear the activists with the help of a credulous/compliant media.
What I think we can learn from this – you shouldn’t straight up believe everything you read in a newspaper, even (especially if?!) it comes from an “official source.”
In the words of the journalist Nicholas Tomalin – “they lie, they lie, they lie.”
What happened next
Same same same. Some things just don’t 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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, November 26th, 2008,
A leading climate scientist has told the Environmental Audit Committee that the international target to cut carbon dioxide is too modest and the cap on temperature rise too high to prevent dangerous climate change.
On 26 November, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee held a special one-off evidence session on the scientific basis for global carbon reduction targets. Giving evidence was leading climate scientist Professor James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the government’s chief scientific adviser Professor John Beddington and Environment Department (DEFRA) scientific adviser Professor Robert Watson.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 the UK had at that time a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 as its target. This was bumped up to 80% in 2008.
The specific context was that the Climate Change Act received Royal Assent that very day.
What I think we can learn from this – the MPs were warned, but didn’t particularly give a shit – tomorrow’s problem.
What happened next – in 2019 the target was pushed up to “Net Zero” (distinct from actual zero) by 2050. All too late.
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.
Seventeen years ago, on this day, November 5th, 2008,
On 5 November 2008, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was opening a new building at the London School of Economics. Speaking of the credit crunch, she turned to some of the economists present and said, ‘It’s awful. Why did no one see it coming?’ Journalists, not constrained to be diplomatic, were more forthright in condemning economists. For Anatol Kaletsky, one-time economics editor of the Times, ‘Economists are the guilty men’ (the Times 5 February 2009). The economics editor of the Guardian, Larry Elliott, claimed that ‘as a profession, economics not only has nothing to say about what caused the world to come to the brink of financial collapse … but also a supreme lack of interest’ (the Guardian 1 June 2009). Writing in the same newspaper, Simon Jenkins attributed this failure to the fact that ‘Economists regard it as their duty fearlessly to offer government what it wants to hear. … Don’t rock the boat, says the modern profession, and the indexed pension is secure.’ The whole economics profession, he contended, had ‘suffered a collapse’ (12 November 2008). https://strangematters.coop/frederic-s-lee-profile-part-one
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 burst onto public awareness again in 2006. The Queen had lobbied Prime Minister Tony Blair to do more in 2004. And then in late 2008 the Global Financial Crisis had kicked in.
The specific context was that by now everyone was talking about the COP to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, as the last chance to save the earth. But everything was complicated by the banking near death experience and the bail outs…
What I think we can learn from this is that smart questions come from the most unexpected quarters.
What happened next – the Queen kept banging on (well, it’s all relative) about climate change. We’re so screwed.
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.
See also
October 31 2004 report in the Observer that the Queen had lobbied Blair on the Bush administration’s stance on climate.
Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 12th, 2008,
“The GetUp Climate Torch Relay reached its finale yesterday with a great event on the lawns in front of Parliament House.
While Messrs Rudd and Turnbull were otherwise occupied with the melting global financial system (as opposed to melting polar ice caps), Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown was on hand and spoke passionately, vehemently and inspirationally.
Can’t tell you too much about what he said as I was running around taking pics and helping people off-stage etc.
It was a brilliant day. It was short on political rhetoric and big on tips and traps for reducing, recycling and reusing. The GetUp theme was: Be a super hero for climate change, so there were orange capes for [people] to don to signify their will to reduce their use of precious natural resources.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 by now Australia was two years into its “omfg, climate change” spasm, and events were beginning to look a little tired.
The specific context was Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spent most of 2008 flying around having meetings with world leaders about the Global Financial Crisis. In the meantime, the policymaking process around a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” was descending into farce, with ever more giveaways to business.
What I think we can learn from this – repertoires get old. Politicians are slime, usually.
What happened next – Rudd’s CPRS was defeated twice, and he didn’t even have the guts to call a double dissolution election. Spineless twunt.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 Greenpeace had been doing this sort of stuff since its very beginnings in the early 1970s.
The specific context was that “global society” was in one of its periodic 3 year periods where elites had to pretend to care about climate change (see also 1988-1992, 2006-2009, 2018-2020). Greenpeace had a “Quit Coal” campaign ahead of the COP meeting in Poznan, Poland.
What I think we can learn from this is that these sorts of stunts “work” on several levels, but don’t on a broader level – to paraphrase “you can’t climb onboard a social relationship.”
What happened next – Greenpeace kept going with this tactic, but the Arctic Sunrise – where they tried it out versus the Russians – gave them pause for thought.
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2008 the “sky will fall if we do anything to reduce emissions and here is some economic modelling to ‘prove’ it” bullshit continued, as the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) release ACIL Tasman modelling, which of course gets uncritical splashes in the Murdoch press.
At the same time, will-be Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull joins then-Liberal leader Brendan Nelson in saying “delay the implementation of an emissions trading scheme.”
Federal opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has fallen into step behind his leader, declaring an emission trading scheme shouldn’t be introduced until it is in Australia’s interest.
In government, the coalition supported a start date of 2012, but earlier this week leader Brendan Nelson indicated it would reject the legislation until big polluting countries agreed to reduce their emissions.
Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister, had steadfastly supported a 2012 start date – until now.
“An emissions trading scheme shouldn’t start until it is ready and until it is in Australia’s interest for it to start,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio.
“The government is definitely rushing this, 2010 is far too soon.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 the use of “independent” economic modelling to say that any emissions reductions efforts would lead directly to Stone Age cannibalism was a favoured tactic of the incumbents (why change a game that had been winning since the early 1990s?).
The specific context was John Howard, who had killed off two Emissions Trading Scheme proposals brought to Cabinet in 2000 and 2003 had been forced into a u-turn in late 2006. The next Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had said he’d bring an ETS in, and various incumbent outfits were trying to delay the start date, while also creating all sorts of loopholes and give-aways.
What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of policy always have fall-back positions. If they can’t stop something in the short-term, they’ll try to soften the blows. This also means that the policy will probably be less effective and easier to reverse in future. A nice little ancillary benefit…
What happened next – Rudd, and his underling Penny Wong, continued to give ground and give ground. Eventually Rudd’s CPRS scheme failed to get through parliament, thanks to new opposition leader Tony Abbott. Rather than call a double-dissolution election, the spineless Rudd pivoted, and tanked his credibility and popularity, which had remained inexplicably high until that point. All this led indirectly to serious blood-letting and bed-wetting. The Australian Labor Party learned all the wrong lessons, and is now just the PR mouthpiece and stabvest for the mining sector. Oh well, so it goes.
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.
