Tag: 2009

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

November 9, 2009 – Senior Liberal says CCS won’t work

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 9th, 2009,

The Federal Government has defended carbon capture and storage technology as a viable option for Australia to cut its emissions.

The Opposition’s emissions trading spokesman, Ian Macfarlane, says clean coal technology has passed Australia by and will probably never work.

Kirk, A. 2009. Clean coal unviable, says Macfarlane. ABC, 9 November.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-10/clean-coal-unviable-says-macfarlane/1136082

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was about to be a vote on Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. And alongside that, there was also peak hype for Carbon Capture and Storage, which was being attacked by clued-up elements of the environment movement as an expensive distraction and boondoggle that wasn’t going to fix climate change. It was being attacked by the denialists as an expensive boondoggle that was not going to fix a non-existent problem. What’s a little bit interesting here is that a relatively senior Liberal, was willing to come out and say the same. Perhaps dog whistling to the denialists perhaps simply because it was the truth, that CCS is a pipe dream.

What we learn is that there’s lots of people criticising CCS, and CCS’s answer would have been to deliver the goods. But the technology is incredibly expensive. There’s not really a market for it. And it hasn’t worked. 

What happened next? Well, the CPRS fell over and then so did CCS. The Liberals got back into power in 2013 and abolished the carbon price. And the rest is history…

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 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

November 9, 1991 – Australian TV station SBS shows demented ‘”Greenhouse Conspiracy” ‘documentary’

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 12, 2009 – Deutsche bank enters modelling war in Australia

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 12th, 2009, the climate wars continue…

A leading global authority on carbon trading has questioned the claimed cost savings of the hybrid emissions trading model being considered by the federal opposition.

Deutsche Bank’s global head of carbon markets, Mark Lewis, said international experience suggested Frontier Economics was wrong to say its model would result in much smaller electricity price increases than would occur under the Rudd government’s proposed ETS.

Breusch, J. 2009. Doubts over emission cost savings. The Australian Financial Review, 12 August, p. 6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberals, then led by Malcolm Turnbull, were trying to offer an alternative to Kevin Rudd CPRS. But of course, it had to be distinct enough and therefore far enough from accepted economic practice norms. Which meant that outfits like Deutsche Bank would be compelled to say it’s crap. 

What we learn is that when there is a consensus around what is “economically efficient,” then bucking that will open you up to all sorts of attacks. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next? I don’t know if the Libs put Deutsche Bank on a blacklist or anything. But what’s interesting is that during the white heat of the climate wars (2010 to ‘13). various consultancies played as dead as they could for fear of missing out on future government contracts.

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 12, 1970 – US Senate warned about climate change

August 12, 1990 – Channel 4 shows crackpot documentary “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”

August 12, 2010 – BZE launches energy plan for Australia

Categories
Australia

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut)

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 11th, 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, famously fond of the sound of his own voice, is actually shut up…

“Giant metaphor strikes Parliament,” is how The Onion might have rendered the power outage that, thankfully, cut Kevin Rudd off mid-sentence on climate change in Question Time yesterday. It was the only interesting moment in a Question Time so boring as to be almost physically unendurable.

The Liberals are making a concerted effort to push the Frontier Economics modelling, and good on them. It’s very brave, because the instant response, not merely from Kevin Rudd but from assembled journalists, is why isn’t it policy, and if it isn’t, what is their policy. That’s a question that remains unresolved.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was in Parliament, preening and bleating. This was after his first attempt at legislating his wretched CPRS had failed, and before it was reintroduced in November. This is one of the few examples of Kevin Rudd actually being shut up. 

What we learn is we learn nothing, because we’re human. 

What happened next Rudd reintroduced the CPRS legislation, and it failed. Thanks to Tony Abbott. Kevin Rudd, the Greens possibly in that order? 

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 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe”

Categories
Technophilia

July 29, 2009 – Climate for Innovation: Technology and IP for Global Climate Solutions” wins the climate bingo award

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 29th, 2009, ALL the buzzwords are in play.

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing entitled, “Climate for Innovation: Technology and Intellectual Property in Global Climate Solutions.”

The key to solving climate change and developing clean energy is technology, and at the center of technology are intellectual property rights. In the Space Race, America had a singular competitor. In the Clean Energy Race to stop global warming, America is competing with the Chinese, Germans, Koreans, and countless others. How these countries and the world deal with intellectual property rights will have a huge impact on whether technology is available and deployed to solve our global problems.

On Wednesday July 29th, 2009 the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing entitled, “Climate for Innovation: Technology and Intellectual Property in Global Climate Solutions.”

This hearing examined the impact of intellectual property rights on global warming solutions and how to encourage American innovation while spreading climate related technologies globally. Technology transfer and cooperation are part of the international climate regime and have become an important issue regarding negotiations on the future international climate agreement, and in the debate heading into the UN Climate Change Conference this December in Copenhagen.

WHAT: Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Hearing, “Climate for Innovation: Technology and Intellectual Property in Global Climate Solutions”

WHEN: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 9:30 AM

WHERE: 210 Cannon House Office Building, Washington DC, and Online

OPENING STATEMENT: Chairman Edward J. Markey

WITNESS LIST:

Mr. Govi Rao, Chairman, Lighting Science Group Corporation

Mr. Robert T. Nelsen, Co-founder and Managing Director, ARCH Venture Partners

Ms. Jennifer Haverkamp, Managing Director for International Policy & Negotiations, Environmental Defense Fund

Dr. Mark Esper, Executive Vice President Global Intellectual Property Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that with Copenhagen COP coming, every man, woman, dog and child, was holding conferences about climate change with all the right buzzwords: science, innovation, technology, mitigation, you name it. And there is a finite number of buzzwords that can be used and you just rearrange them and hope that that exact order hasn’t been used in the last six months. Bish Bosh you’re away. 

What we learn is that humans are trapped in a quite finite web of ideas, or rather, the mainstream is; on the margins, there are all sorts of ideas, some of them good, some of them dangerous, some of them stupid, most of them stupid because humans are fundamentally quite stupid. [You can tell an idea is good when I’ve said it, basically.] And the buzzword bingo can be played.

What happened next. Copenhagen was a washout. And then the caravan kept going, and keeps falling over and having to be put back together again. And here we are. The emissions are still 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: 

July 29, 1974 – the World (will be heating) according to GARP

July 29, 2013 – unreadable denialist screed published.

Categories
Activism Australia

July 12, 2009 – NGO vs NGO – Al Gore asked to be umpire…

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 12th,2009 there was a spat that Al Gore was expected to referee.

WHEN climate change guru Al Gore arrives in Melbourne today, he will find a conservation movement in vitriolic disagreement with itself.

A split has developed between the country’s preeminent environmental organisation, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), and a bloc of other green lobbyists over the foundation’s public support for the Rudd Government’s carbon trading scheme. 

Bachelard, M. 2009. Feuding climate camps seek Gore blessing. Sunday Age, 12 July , p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Rudd Government had been trying to get support for its ridiculous Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. And they’d found it at least with the so-called Southern Crust coalition, led by the ACTU, and the Australian Conservation Foundation. But all the other green groups thought that this was an outrageous sell out. Ambition was too low. And that Rudd should be resisted. It was your fairly standard. NGO fight between people who are determined to keep their place in the room where the decisions are made, and are willing to carry water and get out and defend the indefensible versus those who weren’t in the inside of the room or didn’t want to be on the inside of the room, or were willing to be on the inside of the room as long as they weren’t being used as fig leaves. It’s a pattern you see over and over again. Anyway, apparently, Al Gore was being expected to resolve the dispute. I don’t know if he did.

What we learn from this is that the same patterns over and over again, for understandable reasons. It’s mildly entertaining that Gore should be regarded as a fair actor. I guess he had prestige. And he didn’t have skin in the game instantly. But to expect Gore to come on down on the side of people pushing for higher ambition or maybe. I mean, this was only three years after An Inconvenient Truth, after all. 

What happened next? Rudd’s legislation was introduced for a second time in November 2009. It fell thanks to Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd and the Greens possibly in that order, and then had to be introduced again in 2011 by Julia Gillard, the far superior parliamentarian but everything was in pieces and it all went tits up. Not that it would have mattered, I guess, really? I mean, we’re doomed. We have been doomed for a long time. It’s just taking us a while to catch up with that fact. 

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: 

July 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 9, 2009 – Carbon price being weakened by lobbying…

Fifteen years ago, on this day, March 9th, 2009, the ABC revealed just how much lobbying was going on.

The ALP government’s intransigence is no surprise. The ABC’s Four Corners on March 9 2009 provided detailed confirmation that the CPRS is the product of immense pressure and lobbying from the corporate interests that profit most from Australia’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2511380.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Kevin Rudd had become prime minister, in part by using climate change as a stick to beat Liberal John Howard with. Once in office, though, he just subcontracted this out – largely ignored the issue except for the occasional set piece speech. He was more interested in the global financial crisis and running around saving capitalism and strutting and fretting his error upon the stage. In December of 2008, the carbon pollution reduction scheme white paper had been released. There were protests when Rudd did a speech at the National Press Club. And economist Ross Garnaut who had been Rudd’s pet economist for a little while, but proved to be too honest called that process “Oiling the squeaks”, saying that never in the field of human of Australian lobbying has so much been given to so many so few but so many. 

Anyway. 2009 was the year that Rudd’s lot were supposed to turn the White Paper into actual legislation. And business knew that if it kept kicking and screaming it would keep being given more and more of what it wanted because Rudd is basically a spineless technocrat. And this is a good example of it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that vested interests will never be satisfied with what you give them. (This is the accusation levelled at climate activists, but I think there’s some projection going on).

What happened next

Rudd introduced the legislation. It fell the first time which was fine by him because it gave him more chances to beat up on opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull (who admittedly had been a bit of a douche. Gordon Gretch etc). Then in late 2009, Turnbull ran up the white flag and wanted to get the climate issue off the table. He sent feelers to Rudd who batted him away, convinced he would get the legislation through, defeat the Liberals and go to Copenhagen for victory lap. And then along came Tony Abbott. 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: 

 March 9, 2005- Albanese says “ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds.” #auspol

March 9, 2009 – Scientist tries to separate fact from denialist fiction

Categories
Australia Denial

December 15, 2009 – Monbiot versus Plimer on Lateline

Fourteen years ago, on this day, December 15, 2009, UK commentator George Monbiot took on and demolished Australian geologist Ian Plimer.

2009 Monbiot versus Pilmer on Lateline http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs

http://www.monbiot.com/2009/12/17/showdown-with-plimer/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was talking climate because of the recently concluded Copenhagen conference and the general upsurge in concern over the previous three years. Plimer had written a book called “Heaven and Earth” which has become a major denialist tract. Monbiot was always up for a ruck. Monbiot had already put paid to David Bellamy’s appearances by pointing out that Bellamy had completely misunderstood an aspect of glacier retreat.

What I think we can learn from this

That is rare for a single intellectual crushing and humiliation to particularly matter, but cumulatively they can, I guess.

What happened next

Plimer kept plimering. Monbiot kept publishing. Kevin Rudd did not announce the double dissolution election in response to the blockage of his wretched legislation. The Australia climate wars just got worse. 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..

Categories
Uncategorized

5 December, 1952 & 2009 London sees climatic pollution events

Seventy one years ago, on this day, December 5, 1952…

The potentially deadly nature of urban smoke had been demonstrated some years earlier during London’s historic “Black Fog” of December 5-9, 1952. A temperature inversion trapped the city’s smoke close to the ground. On the first day it was still a white fog, but so extraordinarily dense that cars and buses moved slower than a walk, and the opera had to be cancelled when fog seeped into the theatre and made it impossible for the singers to see the conductor. By the last day, the fog had turned black, visibility was limited to a mere eleven inches, and the hospitals were full of Londoners perishing from the smoke. Many of the 4,000 or so people killed by this episode never made it to the hospital but died on the streets; fifty bodies were removed from one small city park. In 1956, after nearly seven hundred years of complaints about the coal smoke in London, Parliament finally banned the burning of soft coal in the central city, and the air immediately improved.

Page 167-8 Coal: A Human History by Barbara Freese. (c/w Web of Fear!)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that air quality was dreadful. People had been dropping dead in peasoupers, but this was far worse, with a death toll of around four thousand. Finally, four years later, we get the Clean Air Act because of it despite continued resistance, 

What we learn is that there can be multiple disasters, but you need a lot of people to die before anything will get done. 

But interestingly, 57 years later to the day, there is another form of pollution in London, mental pollution, i.e. “hopey-pollution.” 

So the context is this. At the end of 2008, the main legislative goal had been agreed, a Climate Change Act and this was almost entirely due to the work of Friends of the Earth, bless them. They did really good work there. Then what do you do for an encore? And the problem is that even getting that much agreement was tricky. And you need to do something that has got low entry costs that everyone can agree that might apparently help the process along. And some bright spark came up with the idea of a march and the earliest publicity said “March in December”, haha. 

And it was then changed to “The Wave.” This is not really the fault of the individuals having to work within a system that contains and constrains everything.

And that means that we have to undertake these ritualised repertoires, because what else is there? 

But I remember a conversation with a very frustrated advocate of marching.

And I said, “do we need social movements to fight climate change?” 

“Yes” she said

“Do marches build social movements?” 

“No” she conceded, but was still fuming that I wasn’t interested in marching.

The end.

Here we are unwilling and unable to innovate to do the granular work because it’s just not near enough to our wheelhouse. 

So 57 years apart, London is subjected to two deadly consequences of its industrial heritage…

Categories
Australia

November 24, 2009 – the Climate War in Australia goes kinetic…

On this day, November 24, 2009, the Liberals and Nationals finally decide there are more votes in rage than in the future…

The pivotal event was the Coalition party meeting of 24 November [2009] to consider the shadow cabinet recommendation to support Rudd’s amended scheme. This meeting determined the future of conservative politics for many years, and its consequences for Australia were far-reaching. The debate began at 10am with a briefing from Macfarlane who called the deal ‘exceptional’. Most backbenchers struggled with its complexity. The meeting ran for more than seven hours, with two breaks. Its disputed outcome was an insight into the arcane nature of political rituals.

Kelly, (2014:252)

The context was that, despite having gone to the 1990 Federal Election with a stronger climate target than the ALP, the Liberals and Nationals decided that the scientists were lying, physics was wrong and there was nothing to worry about. That held until 2006, when Prime Minister John Howard had been forced into another of his U-turns, and had announced the “Shergold Report” – a “limited hangout” of an emissions trading scheme. It had convinced nobody and Howard was swept from office in November 2007. The Liberals had started to backtrack on climate under the first Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson. Once Malcolm Turnbull had taken over, things shifted back. But Turnbull, disliked by his own party and also wounded by a shoot-self-in-foot scandal earlier, was in a weak position…

What we can learn is that big events don’t need big causes. It can all go horribly wrong for no particular reason (though by this time the Australian Coal Association had properly got itself going on the anti-carbon pricing campaigning. Again.

What happened next

Turnbull was sacked. His replacement was not, as many expected, Joe Hockey, but thugchild Tony Abbott. And the climate wars properly kicked off…

Categories
Australia

 July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 7, 2008, the Liberal Party in Australia, perhaps bewildered to be in Opposition, started backtracking from the (pissweak) commitments it had taken to the 2007 Federal election.

THE Coalition split over climate change policy is growing, with Brendan Nelson refusing to embrace publicly the policy he has agreed to in private with senior colleagues.

Dr Nelson refused again yesterday to state simply that the Coalition supported the introduction of an emissions trading scheme regardless of whether the world’s major polluters were also prepared to act.

While taking an increasingly sceptical line towards climate change, the Opposition Leader denied there was an internal split over policy, claiming instead that it was “a question of emphasis”.

But he is falling foul of senior colleagues including the deputy leader Julie Bishop, the shadow treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull, and the environment spokesman, Greg Hunt.

Until this week the Coalition policy was to introduce a domestic emissions trading scheme no later than 2012.

On Monday [7 July] Dr Nelson walked away from that, saying nothing should be done until major polluters such as China and India were also committed, otherwise it would be economic suicide.

Coorey, P. 2008. Party lurches as Nelson shifts climate course. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 July

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Brendan Nelson had become leader of the Liberals after John Howard had lost his seat in the 2007 election. Let’s say that again. John Howard lost his seat in the 2007. Election. Nelson was by this time finding it pretty hard to square the circle because many Liberal MPs and especially National Party MPs, (the party the Liberals were in coalition with) did not like the idea that the hippies had been right and that greenhouse gases were something to worry about. And he was finding it hard to square the circle. And by this time, he must have known that Malcolm Turnbul, the ambitious  merchant wanker was circling, wanting the top job. 

What I think we can learn from this is that climate change is driving us mad both as individuals but also as organisations. It is an impossible object, a bit like what Captain Picard wanted to implant in the captured Borg in that episode of Star Trek. It is simply driving everyone mad because to use an old Marxist bit of jargon, “the contradictions” cannot be contained and papered over indefinitely.

What happened next is that Turnbull knifed Nelson, tried to bring the Liberals along with climate policy, was left swinging by Kevin Rudd, was then toppled and took everyone by surprise. Tony Abbott became opposition leader. Turnbull eventually toppled Abbott as Prime Minister in 2015. Yes, this is a soap opera. And then Turnbull was himself toppled as Prime Minister. And one of the people who voted against him in that leadership contest mentioned, Brendan Nelson The writers of the soap opera have clearly been paying attention to the back catalogue, and taking way too much acid.

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.