Tag: 2009

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.

Categories
Australia

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 19, 2009, the leader of the Liberal Party gets in a snit because business is – gasp – happy enough with the weak policy being proposed by the Australian Labor Party (then in government).

MALCOLM Turnbull has attacked big business for “snuggling up” to Labor, demanding business publicly back the Coalition strategy of amending and then passing the government’s emissions trading laws.

In a blunt exchange with about 30 chief executives at a Business Council of Australia breakfast at Parliament House on Wednesday, [17]Mr Turnbull attacked business for being “intimidated” into supporting the government and for failing to publicly push for amendments to the laws.

Taylor, L. 2009. Opposition tells industry: don’t `snuggle up’ to Labor — Turnbull puts heat on business. The Australian, 19 June, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Malcolm Turnbull as the new Liberal Party leader needed to attack Labor, get business on side and not lose his own support. This was always going to be tricky given the competing and frankly irreconcilable demands.

What I think we can learn from this

A political party has explicit ideological needs, whereas business needs to cuddle up to whoever is in government and to keep selling stuff to people even when they’re having one of the periodic fits of “Let’s save the Planet.” Therefore business is going to take a more rational clear-eyed reality-based focus. This can be hard for a political party – especially one which takes business support for granted – to understand.

What happened next

Turnbull tried to take the carbon pricing issue off the table sending his Chief of staff Chris Kenny to talk with Rhodes chief of staff but no dice road was enjoying Turnbull’s agony too much. See Paul Kelly’s book Triumph and Demise for the gory details. Turnbull then lost his position as Liberal party leader to Tony Abbott, who came out swinging against doing anything on climate 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.

Categories
United Kingdom

The Guardian holds a climate summit. We. Are. Saved. June 15, 2009.

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 15, 2009, the Grauniad tried to get everyone together in a room at a climate summit “Moving from awareness to action in tough economic times”

Sponsored by Shell. Obvs.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that every man and their dog were talking about climate change – had been since the second half of 2006. And now the Copenhagen Climate Summit was going to be the icing on the cake. So of course, a quote left of centre, but actually centrist newspaper has to bring together the bien-peasants (sic) and business to show that it is a responsible corporate citizen. And there is lots of talk about technology and social change and expectations. Because there are reputations to be burnished and logs to be rolled and mutual back-scratching of various intensity. And how else do you know if you’re alive, unless you’re on one of these platforms being obediently listened to? 

What I think we can learn from this

What we learn is that the cycle goes on, and that everyone has their stable place in the emotacycle and the corporate emotacycle. But no one asks question “Gee, what have we been doing wrong?” 

What happened next

Copenhagen was predictable and predicted catastrophe. But everyone keeps on same day. 

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 Nations

May 20, 2010 – climategate keeps delivering for denialists

Thirteen years ago, on this day, May 20, 2010, a bunch of scientists had to waste more of their time answering questions about the theft of emails from a computer server.

2010 The scientists involved in the stolen climate emails from the University of East Anglia were exonerated by the British House of Commons and an international panel of climate experts, led by Lord Oxburgh. Even after these investigations found that nothing in the emails undercut the scientific evidence of climate change, attacks against scientists continue. Reports of harassment, death threats and legal challenges have created a hostile environment, making it challenging for actual data and scientific analyses to reach the public and policymakers.

On Thursday, May 20th, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing to examine the intersection between climate science and the political process. This hearing, entitled “Climate Science in the Political Arena,” featured prominent climate scientists, some of whom have been the target of these attacks. This hearing explored scientists’ ability to present data and information that can guide global warming solutions in a sometimes fierce political landscape.

WHAT: Climate Science in the Political Arena

WHEN: Thursday May 20, 2010, 9:00 AM

WHERE: 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC

OPENING STATEMENT: Chairman Edward J. Markey

WITNESSES:

Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council

Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego

Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University

Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton University

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 393.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 420 ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that shortly before the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, somebody broke into the University of East Anglia servers, downloaded an enormous tranche of communications between various scientists, and then released these as the so-called Climate gate emails, trying to insinuate that there was some scandal. There had been significant fallout. And these hearings were politicians trying to show that they were concerned and figuring out what hadn’t hadn’t happened.  By then, though, and this is the beauty of a smear, the work is actually done. A lie can be halfway around the world, but for the truth has got its boots on.

What I think we can learn from this

Smearing climate scientists is easy. Nobody is able to live their life without making slips that can be magnified, exaggerated truths distorted, etc. 

What happened next? The climategate emails still get trotted out by denialists as proof of the malfeasance of climate scientists and the “corruption” of the science. 

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
Agnotology Denial

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

Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 9, 2009, Stefan Rahmstorf, climate scientist and oceanographer at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research spends time and readers’ bandwidth unpicking the trickery of Bjohn Lomborg, ace lukewarmist.

“And it is telling that he then goes on to draw an “inescapable” conclusion about a slow-down of sea level rise from just four years of data. This is another well-worn debating trick: confuse the public about the underlying trend by focusing on short-term fluctuations. It’s like claiming spring won’t come if there is a brief cold snap in April.”

Rebuttal in The Guardian of Lomborg´s claim that sea level is not steadily rising, March 9th 2009.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/climate-change-copenhagen

And see this from page 17 of James Powell’s “could scientists be wrong”

http://jamespowell.org/resources/CouldScientistsBeWrong.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that denialists were stepping up their campaigns of cherry-picking, doubt-mongering  and so on. The so-called lukewarmists – a more sophisticated.version of straight out denial, were stepping up their campaigns of doubt and confusion and spewing out flak, ahead of another big international gathering, this time in Copenhagen.

What I think we can learn from this

The patient work of debunking a set of misleading statements is costly and ineffective. Because the mere attempt to debunk gives the appearance that there are two more or less equal sides in a debate on this issue. There really aren’t, not equal, cognitively or in terms of numbers of working scientists.

But they want to give that impression thus – the Oregon petition, (which comes up in April on this site), and so on.

What happened next

The “Gish Gallop” technique keeps getting used, because it’s a really effective tool in the absence of an educated populace that is able to think for itself.

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
Activism Coal United States of America

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Fourteen years ago, on this day, March 2, 2009, protestors blockade a coal plant

The blockade lasted nearly four hours, forming what organizers called the largest display of civil disobedience on the climate crisis in U.S. history. 

Police were out in force, but no one was arrested.

The 99-year-old plant is responsible for an estimated one-third of the legislative branch’s greenhouse gas emissions. It no longer generates electricity for the legislative buildings but provides steam for heating and chilled water for cooling buildings within the Capitol Complex.

Environmental and climate celebrities led the protest action, including NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen, who released a video on YouTube in February urging people to join him March 2 at the demonstration to send a message to Congress and the President that, “We want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet.”

2009  Capitol Coal Plant protest – demonstrators blockade one of the five gates to the Capitol Power plant. March 2, 2009.http://www.capitolclimateaction.org“

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/climate-action-03-02-2009.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there is always ongoing effort to shut individual energy projects. And these can be dismissed as NIMBY. But it’s really important to fight those battles because how else are you gonna stop local madness and build the confidence, competence and credibility to stop the national and international madness?. And also to try to have an influence on national policy, obviously. 

What I think we can learn from this

We need to remember and celebrate resistance not just dissent, but actual resistance.

What happened next

Read it and weep – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Power_Plant

The emissions kept climbing.

But this is extraordinary, from a 2015 article in Politico, “Inside the War on Coal”

Beyond Coal’s pivotal moment came at a meeting in Gracie Mansion about, of all things, education reform. Michael Bloomberg, the Wall Street savant-turned media mogul-turned New York City mayor, was looking for a new outlet for his private philanthropy. It quickly became clear that education reform would not be that outlet.

“It was a terrible meeting in every way, and Mike was angry,” recalls his longtime adviser, Kevin Sheekey. “I said: ‘Look, if you don’t like this idea, that’s fine. We’ll bring you another.’ He said: ‘No, I want another now.’”

As it happened, Sheekey had just eaten lunch with Carl Pope, who was starting a $50 million fundraising drive to expand Beyond Coal’s staff to 45 states. The cap-and-trade plan that Obama supported to cut carbon emissions had stalled in Congress, and the carbon tax that Bloomberg supported was going nowhere as well. Washington was gridlocked. But Pope had explained to Sheekey that shutting down coal plants at the state and local level could do even more for the climate—and have a huge impact on public health issues close to his boss’s heart.

“That’s a good idea,” Bloomberg told Sheekey. “We’ll just give Carl a check for the $50 million. Tell him to stop fundraising and get to work.”

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
Australia

December 23, 2009 – Kevin Rudd told to call double-dissolution #climate election… (spoiler – he didn’t)

On this day, December 23 in 2009, Kevin Rudd was given the strongest possible advice to go for an early “double dissolution” election and force through climate policies.

In the week before Christmas, on 23 December 2009, a leadership strategy group comprising Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Faulkner, Arbib, Bitar and Alister Jordan gathered at Phillip Street, Sydney. Accounts of this meeting differ widely and significantly. Yet the central thrust seems clear. Arbib and Bitar say they wanted an early 2010 double dissolution election to be announced around Australia Day 2010.

Paul Kelly, 2014, Triumph and Demise, p275

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 387ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Kevin “greatest moral challenge” Rudd had been enjoying watching the Liberals and Nationals tear themselves apart on climate change, while simultaneously allowing his own policy to be watered down and watered down.  When push came to shove, the Greens (whom he had been steadfastly ignoring) didn’t vote for the legislation. Tony ‘wrecking ball’ Abbott became opposition leader, the Copenhagen conference failed and Rudd lost the plot.

Why this matters. 

The ALP never point out that their man Rudd had a choice, and he blew it.  Instead they blame the Greens (full disclosure – I am not now, and never have been, a member of the Green Party of Australia/England/Mars whatever.)

What happened next?

Rudd chickened out, lost all credibility when he punted the climate issue that had been – according to him ‘the great moral challenge of our generation’. Then he tried to bring in a mining tax, incurred the wrath of the cashed up miners (obvs) and then got toppled by his deputy, Julia Gillard, after a front page of the Sydney Morning Herald story with an insinuatiion against her loyalty to Rudd against her finally broke her patience (and loyalty).  And then, then the soap opera got properly wild…

Categories
Australia

November 6, 2009 – Kevin Rudd playing politics with the climate

On this day, November 6 in 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave a speech at the Lowy Institute about climate change, ahead of his second go at getting legislation through Parliament, and with the Copenhagen Conference coming up.  And he enjoyed poking Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull in the chest

“The clock is ticking for the planet, but [the] vested interests at work are simply too great”

Rudd had not really done very much talking about climate change over the previous two years (except when a policy document was landing). A February 2010 article by journo Peter Hartcher  claimed Rudd’s climate silence had been deliberate, since it meant the media would be attacking Liberals a lot. Who knows. Certainly Rudd could have been out there explaining the basics and explaining the danger, instead of occasional soundbites. 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Turnbull had made false accusations about Rudd and corruption a few months previously (“Godwin Gretch”). Rudd was enjoying the Liberals and Nationals fighting each other, weakening Turnbull.

Why this matters. 

No issue – even the end of the world – is off limits to politicians engaged in their usual positioning and fighting. An active civil society might have kept a lid on that, a bit, I guess. We’re so toast.

What happened next?

Turnbull got replaced by Tony Abbott.  Rudd’s legislation failed, (and yes, the Greens didn’t vote for it), Copenhagen was a disaster and Rudd didn’t have the spine and good sense to do what his advisers were begging him to do – call a double dissolution election about climate change.  He then pissed off Julia Gillard one time too many, she rolled him and…. Oh, it’s so exhausting to recount.

Categories
Australia

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

On this day, November 2 in 2009, 

Abbott had dropped his daughters at the bus stop and was driving back across Roseville Bridge at about 7.30am when he turned on 2GB and heard Malcolm Turnbull having a set-to with Alan Jones. If you listen to a tape of that 2 November 2009 exchange now, you hear Turnbull refusing to kowtow to Jones, who becomes hysterically agitated about the ‘hoax’ of global warming and a secret deal by world leaders which will bleed $50 billion from Australia and send it off to South America. Turnbull is sharp with Jones once or twice, asking to be heard, reminding him his heroes Margaret Thatcher and John Howard wanted action on global warming: ‘Don’t you think,’ asks the leader of the Opposition, ‘you sound like the old lady who says the whole world is mad except for thee and me, and I have my doubts about thee?’

Abbott thought Turnbull’s leadership was terminal at that moment. What he was hearing was  bar-room brawl between his leader and the guru of a great swathe of the Liberal Party. This was no way to deal with Alan Jones. Turnbull wasn’t showing the necessary respect. It would cause immense damage.

(Marr, 2012:73)

[see also Paul Kelly “Triumph and Demise” on same period – Turnbull trying to get CPRS through with Rudd enjoying his pain too much to bother making a deal. You never hear the ALP talk about that – instead they like to bash the Greens…]

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 385ish ppm. At time of writing it was 41ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

John Howard had resisted any climate action for as long as possible, but finally in late 2006 had switched too a fallback of asking a civil servant to look at emissions trading – the Shergold Report, as much of a u-turn as you were going to get. He then got blown away in the November 2007 elections by Kevin “I’m from Queensland, I’m here to help” Rudd. Turnbull had overthrown first post-Howard Lib leader, Brendan Nelso, brought some Libs with him, not others….

Why this matters. 

We should always be alert to “but for a nail the battle was lost” and just how mad-as-a-box-of-frogs-left-on-the-back-seat-of-a-Ute the internal dynamics of political parties can be.

What happened next?

The Climate Wars

Categories
Australia Social Movements Unsolicited advice

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

On this day, in 2009, at the climax of their three day Climate Action Summit, protesters linked arms around Parliament House in Canberra. Climate activism had exploded in 2006 in Australia, with everything from marches to, in the following years, direct action attempts to prevent the export of coal from Newcastle. Activist group Rising Tide had held climate camps and with the new Rudd Government talking about climate action, the time seemed ripe with promise. 

However, by the end of 2008, it was obvious that the Labour government which had promised so much was going to deliver at best, very, very little. Activists had interrupted Rudd’s National Press Club presentation at the end of 2008. And economist Ross Garneau had denounced Rudd’s “carbon pollution reduction scheme” with the words “Never in the history of Australian public finance has so much been given without public policy purpose, by so many, to so few,”

So 2009 looked like it was going to be the year when citizens said enough. However, it was not to be. Protest movements struggle, once an issue is on the agenda, because many who would otherwise support it, say, “you’ve got to give the process time, you’ve got to see what emerges.” This, of course, plays into the hands of incumbents who know very well how to slow things down, how to sideline proposals, how to water down commitments, how to demand extensions, and special treatment.  If the insurgents don’t have a class interest that binds them together, they are even more vulnerable…

And of course, this was all happening in the middle of the global financial crisis. (But there is always some reason not to act on a long term problem, like climate change.) 

Why this matters? 

We need to understand that you can physically, symbolically encircle a parliament but actually restricting the ability of elected politicians to weasel out and to water down is a much tougher proposition requiring different skills, different capacities. 

What happened next?

Rudd’s CPRS failed to get through Parliament early in 2000. And in mid 2009, and failed again, in December of that year, when the Liberals revolted, the Greens refused to support it. And the rest of the story is horrible. But we know that.

See also

Greenpeace summary