Tag: 2009

Categories
Australia Business Responses

April 14, 2009 – Penny Wong meets the Business Council of Australia, white flag in hand…

Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 14th, 2009,

It’s a clear autumn day in April and Penny Wong and her chief of staff, close friend Don Frater, are in a hire car on their way to Noosa. As the sun shines on the coastal playground and restaurant mecca, the politician and her staffer are far from relaxed. Wong and Frater have flown from Canberra to Maroochydore in the Government VIP, then picked up the hire car for a high-stakes game – navigating their way through the politics of the emissions trading scheme they have massaged and managed for months.

The trip is top secret. Four weeks earlier Wong had faced the uncomfortable truth: the scheme, the mainstay of Kevin Rudd’s green credentials, had become a political nightmare, backed neither by business nor by environmental lobbyists, let alone by any of the parties with the balance of power in the Senate.

Today – April 14 – in Noosa is about a strategic backdown. The target is the president of the Business Council of Australia, Greig Gailey, who is on holiday in the town. Today he opens the door to some very businesslike guests. They want to sound him out about exactly what it would take to win business over.

(Taylor, 2009)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 2006-7 Australian politician Kevin Rudd had used the issue of climate change as a stick to beat Prime Minister John Howard with. Rudd was now enjoying watching the Liberals continue to tear themselves apart on whether or not to support an emissions trading scheme. This was all part of the game of politics. The CPRS legislation was about to be introduced into parliament, and everyone expected it would fall the first time. Which did come to pass. 

What I think we can learn from this is that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a corporate shell game with demonstration elections. And there are people willing to be the hawkers and the sidekicks to that, because the perks are nice. 

What happened next

 The CPRS legislation fell again in November-December, 2009 and Kevin Rudd initially thought this was great that Tony Abbott would tank. But then Copenhagen tanked, and then Rudd seems to have had some sort of breakdown and refused to call a double dissolution election, even though he was advised to. And then, when he pulled the plug on his CPRS (see April 11 post), his popularity plummeted very quickly, and he switched to trying to introduce a liberal resources tax. The rest is, as the podcast title goes, 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.

References

Taylor, L. 2009. The minister of cool. The Australian Magazine May 23.

Also on this day: 

April 14, 1964 – RIP Rachel Carson

 April 14, 1980 – Carter’s scientist, Frank Press, pushes back against CEQ report – All Our Yesterdays

April 14th, 1989 – 24 US senators call for immediate unilateral climate action

Categories
Australia Denmark UNFCCC United Nations

March 26, 2010 – How many Aussie Government types were at Nopenhagen? Lots!

Fifteen years ago, on this day, March 26th, 2010, the Labor government was forced to give details of the size of the (large) Australian delegation to COP-15 in Copenhagen. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that  Copenhagen hadn’t just been Kevin Rudd tearing up  the speech that had been written for him, rewriting it and delivering it to a total lack of applause. No, Copenhagen had been 70 or 75 officials and experts and so forth, all flying halfway around the world to save the world. And the Liberals were wanting to punch the bruise, and so requested the information in order to have the ammo that to run a one day wonder, “waste of money, pointy headed bureaucrats with their snouts in the trough style” article. And so it came to pass.

What I think we can learn from this

that any international negotiation is going to involve sherpas at the summit and all sorts of other malarkey. And for those who are opposed to the agenda of whatever the summit is, it’s a very easy writes-itself kind of critique. And that’s what happened. 

What happened next

A couple months after this Rudd was gone. The climate issue, however, was not…

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

March 26, 2007 – Lavoisier Group lay into CCS

Categories
United Kingdom

March 6, 2009 – first “Low Carbon Industrial Strategy” announced

Sixteen years ago, on this day, March 6th, 2009, Peter Mandelson launching low carbon industrial strategy says 400,000 jobs in the next decade..

. https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/mandelson-launches-low-carbon-strategy/

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 that with the Global Financial Crisis in full swing, Peter Mandelson recently returned from time as a European Commissioner and bringing back a new-found love of industrial policy launched the first “low carbon industrial strategy with the all singing, all dancing Copenhagen climate conference coming up in 10 months. And of course, the Climate Change Act passed into law only two months previously. So this needs to be seen in the context of UK/EU/global efforts. 

What I think we can learn from this is that “industrial policy” as an okay thing goes back further than we thought – I mean, it was a standard Keynesian tool. However, after the post-stagflation triumph of the monetarists/neoliberals, it was career suicide in the 80s and 90s and first half of the noughties to say it, because you would be met with “beer and sandwiches at number 10” as an insult and apparently argument-winningpoint.

What happened next

Well, Gordon Brown’s premiership was at this point, already clearly a dead duck. There was an election in 2010 and to the shame of the Liberal Democrats, hungry for limousines and red boxes, they enabled the Tories (but then Nick Clegg is a Tory on everything except Europe). And although portions of the green rhetoric were kept, it was adios to industrial policy in any meaningful sense.

The low carbon industrial policy went south, but then came back and back and back again, and a new one is going to be launched in June (already pushed back from March). 

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 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch.

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”

Categories
Activism Australia

January 31, 2009 – Climate Action Summit

Sixteen years ago, on this day, January 31st, 2009,

 From January 31 to February 3, 2009, over 150 community based climate action groups and more than 500 people came together in Canberra to talk, debate, strategise and take action on climate change at Australia’s Climate Action Summit. 

http://www.foe.org.au/australias-climate-action-summit

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from late 2006 onwards, there had been a great deal of awareness/alarm about climate change and its impacts in Australia and various actions in various places. By late 2008 it was obvious that the Rudd Government was doing a tremendous amount of backsliding and caving in to vested interests. 

And so the Climate Action Summit was held in a period where there was a fragile elite consensus that wasn’t really worth a bucket of warm spit, and citizens were trying to do it for themselves. 

What I think we can learn from this is that citizens can’t do it for themselves. They have to somehow create irresistible pressure on elected representatives, on states, on bureaucracies. But this is much easier said than actually done. 

What happened next

Climate change, oddly, continued to be an open sore, kind of permanently, but especially until the end of 2011 when Julia Gillard managed to get climate legislation through the parliament.

Various climate action summits and efforts at NVDA and efforts at public pressure have continued ever since, and here we are – fubarred. 

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: 

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind

Categories
Australia

January 13, 2009 – Medical Journal of Australia warns about climate impacts

Sixteen years ago, on this day, January 13th, 2009,

 Aborigines living in remote parts of Australia will feel the impact of climate warming more than other Australians, a report says. With temperatures in the tropical north and interior tipped to rise by three degrees Celsius by 2050, worsening already searing summer heat, the government needs to urgently improve Aboriginal health and housing, researchers wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia. 

….”Elevated temperatures and increases in hot spells are expected to be a major problem for Indigenous health in remote areas, where cardiovascular and respiratory disease are more prevalent and there are many elderly people with inadequate facilities to cope with the increased heat stress,” they wrote.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-13/aborigines-to-feel-climate-shift-most-report/265222Donna Green, Ursula King and Joe Morrison

Green, et al. 2009.Disproportionate burdens: the multidimensional impacts of climate change on the health of Indigenous Australians Med J Aust ; 190 (1): 4-5. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02250.x

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had gained power in part by saying that he would take action on climate change. Already by this time, however, it was pretty clear that that “action” would be utterly inadequate to the scale of the challenge at best. Meanwhile, the Millennium drought was still making life hell.

What I think we can learn from this  is that bodies such as the Medical Journal of Australia were wanting to raise the issue of the most vulnerable people getting it in the neck.

What happened next Rudd couldn’t get his piss-weak climate legislation through, and the next year was toppled by his deputy prime minister, Julia Gillard, and we finally got legislation in 2012 (repealed two years later)

The danger for vulnerable communities, poor, rural, isolated continues to climb, and there will be places that will have to be abandoned because of heat. And we Are A Stupid, Stupid species. 

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:

Categories
Denmark UNFCCC

December 18, 2009 – the worthless “Copenhagen Accord”

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 18th, 2009,

the worthless “Copenhagen Accord” was agreed. We’re all doomed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process had been in deep shit from 2001 when President Bush’s handlers told him to withdraw from Kyoto. It had only been brought back into shape by the Russians wanting World Trade Organisation membership and a quid pro quo of ratifying Kyoto. And then from 2007, there had been an intense process literally called the “Road to Copenhagen.” And here we are… Is this all we’ve got? Is that it? 

What we learn is that the international process is fundamentally broken for a variety of reasons. There are always going to be people who want to keep that particular show on the road because they have so much invested psychologically and professionally (see here). And here we are. 

What happened next? Along came Cancun. And along came Durban. And along came all the other COPs – Paris, Poznan, Glasgow, Dubai, Azerbaijan etc all amounting to fuck all.

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: 

December 18, 1970 – Science article about “Man-Made Climatic Changes”

December 18, 2008 – Tim DeChristopher does his auction action

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

November 23, 2009 – Global Warming Policy Foundation launched

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 23rd, 2009, everyone’s favourite science-loving and entirely rational outfit, the “Global Warming Policy Foundation” is launched

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was, speaking of nut jobs (see yesterday’s post), the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created. With some big names who mysteriously always get invited onto the BBC to spout bollocks, even though it is absurd, and scientists are pointing out the absurdity all the time. Having a “Foundation” is also a useful place to hold your meetings, especially with visiting American nut jobs. 

What we learn is that the founding of these organisations usually indicates an intention to build capacity to act. The Global Warming Policy Foundation has had to hive off its campaigning subsidiary after complaints, but they’d scored some decent victories and they can be proud of the fact that they’ve been a persistent irritant of and confused the public mind, which was of their purpose all along. Just old white men who can’t admit that they backed the wrong horse, and that their beloved so-called free market capitalism is actually going to be responsible for the death of us all. Because that would mean that they were bad people supporting a bad system and that is, of course impossible, cannot be true. 

What happened next

There are people (inc MPs) trying to get the Charity Commission to do its job… “MPs accuse Charity Commission of legal breach over climate sceptic thinktank” The Guardian, April 2025

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 23, 1961 – “The Day the Earth Caught Fire” (in Denmark)

November 23, 1963 – Doctor Who begins

November 23, 1968 – “Hell upon Earth” warning about environmental destruction,inc. Climate…

November 23, 1988 – Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke gives greenhouse speech

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”