Tag: 2010

Categories
Australia

July 10, 2010 – Rio Tinto amplifies the message…

Thirteen years ago, on this day, July 10, 2010, the CEO of mining giant Rio Tinto was talking about what politicians could learn about the recent dumping of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who had been campaigning for a mining super-tax

 “Policy-makers around the world can learn a lesson when considering a new tax to plug a revenue gap, or play to local politics.” Rio Tinto CEO Tom Albanese, one week after Labor dumped Prime Minister Rudd and the super-profits tax. Cleary, P. (2011) page 80

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Rio Tinto and other companies, multinational and national, had just spent a LOT of money on television and newspaper adverts and lobbying to defeat a mining tax proposed by wounded Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Rudd had been dumped by his own party but not for mining tax reasons, simply because he was unbearable, and his staunchly loyal deputy Julia Gillard had finally had enough. 

What I think we can learn from this is that after you spend all that money, you want to send a message to any other politician, warning them of what’s going to happen so that you don’t have to spend the same  amount of money again, it’s the equivalent of hanging someone’s executed body on a gibbet with a sign that says “fuck around and find out.”

What happened next  a minimal mining tax was negotiated by the Gillard government that clearly did not have the political capital or appetite for a fight. And the mining companies kept making money hand over fist and the Australian taxpayer continues to get shafted. Because Australia is basically a quarry with a wholly-owned subsidiary state attached.

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
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

June 30, 2010 – CCS will be at 5GW by 2020. (nope).

Thirteen years ago, on this day, June 30, 2010, DECC Minister, Gregory Barker, stated that the Government was committed to 5 GW of CCS by 2020 in a debate on 30 June 2010: 

“… the coalition Government are committed to carbon capture and storage, which will be a major plank in our efforts to decarbonise our energy supply by 2030; we are committed to the generation of 5 GW of CCS by 2020. We see the potential of CCS, not just for our domestic use and as part of our plan to decarbonise the economy, but as a huge potential export industry for the UK in which we can not only capture new markets for British jobs, but help the world in striving to decarbonise the global economy.42”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the new coalition government was making the right noises after the previous Brown government had established a CCS competition in 2007.

What I think we can learn from this is that the promises around CCS have been persistent. The delivery, not so much.

What happened next

The first competition was abandoned. A new competition set up in 2012 was unilaterally abandoned in 2015 and there has been a long slow process of getting CCS going again since then. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

Categories
United States of America

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil.

Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 24, 2010, another depressing article appeared in Nature. Why do they never print positive stories, eh?

Even soil feels the heat 

Twenty years of field studies reveal that as the Earth has gotten warmer, plants and microbes in the soil have given off more carbon dioxide. So-called soil respiration has increased about one-tenth of 1 percent per year since 1989, according to an analysis of past studies in today’s issue of Nature.

The scientists also calculated the total amount of carbon dioxide flowing from soils, which is about 10 -15 percent higher than previous measurements. That number — about 98 petagrams of carbon a year (or 98 billion metric tons) — will help scientists build a better overall model of how carbon in its many forms cycles throughout the Earth. Understanding soil respiration is central to understanding how the global carbon cycle affects climate.

https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=786

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this part of the ongoing work, scientific work in biological systems, is pointing out that the impacts of climate change are on the whole going to come faster and harder than we previously thought. Not always but usually.

Biologists had been looking at climate change and going “hmm” since the mid 1950s (see the great G. Evelyn Hutchinson).

What I think we can learn from this

We need to remember that there is the risk as James Hansen puts it of being too reticent, as per his May 2007 thoughts (link here).

What happened next

We kept running the big experiment. And the results are coming in.

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
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial Media

March 10, 2010 – ABC chairman gives stupid speech to staff

Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 10, 2010, Maurice Newman, a neoliberal warrior from the 1970s onwards, gave a climate denial speech to senior ABC staff. Prime Minister John Howard had appointed him as chair in January 2007.

 In a speech to senior ABC staff on 10 March 2010 he said climate change was an example of “group-think”. According to an ABC PM account of the speech: “Contrary views had not been tolerated, and those who expressed them had been labelled and mocked. Mr Newman has doubts about climate change himself and says he’s waiting for proof either way.”

(wikipedia Maurice Newman)

and

“The media hasn’t been good at picking these things up and it’s really been the question of what is conventional wisdom and consensus rather than listening perhaps to other points of view that may be sceptical.

“And I brought in as well in that vain what’s been going on in climate change where there’s been clearly a point of view which has been prevailing in the mainstream media, and the fact that again perhaps consensus and conventional wisdom may not always stand us in good stead.”

https://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2842177.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

People like Maurice Newman, long time neoliberal soldier, want to be within the commanding organisations such as universities and media, for obvious reasons. And he did what he (was) set out to do….

What I think we can learn from this

What’s interesting, what we can learn is that these terms like “groupthink” gets thrown around as if there’s some sort of profound statement. And they’re a shortcut for avoiding actually engaging with the fact that the science around the basics of climate change has been settled for a very long time. Unable to combat that. Newman and his ilk resort to name-calling and pseudo profound smears.  But it’s quite effective…

What happened next

In an article in The Australian on May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council, said that the United Nations is behind the global warming hoax. The real agenda of the UN “is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” Newman said. “This is not about facts or logic,” he added. “It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

James Powell Could Scientists Be Wrong

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

The ABC has continued to be a site of struggle, and has been almost entirely hollowed out by the neoliberals and their chums. You can always track individual journalists and stack the board with non entities and lackeys and if they persist in being independent, reduce their funding until they get the message. 

See also organisational decay.

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 Uncategorized

February 28, 2010 – Australian Prime Minister says won’t walk away from climate. (Then does, obvs.)

Thirteen  years ago, on this day, February 28, 2010, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was on a then-quite-good ABC TV program called “Insiders.”

He said this: “When our kids look back in 20 years and ask the question of this generation, ‘were they fair dinkum or did they walk away from it?’, I’d rather say that I threw everything at it, threw absolutely everything at it, to try and make it work, and to try and deliver an outcome at home and abroad.

“We think we’ve got to act, and act appropriately. That’s why we don’t walk away from this one bit.”

Then two months later, he walked away from the whole issue of climate change, trying to pin it all on Tony Abbott.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-24/rudds-downfall-he-never-really-got-it/880258  and https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-17085

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Kevin Rudd had skilfully come to power in late 2007 by using climate change as a wedge against his political opponents – first Prime Minister John Howard, and then, once he got the top job, against opposition leaders Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull.  But then, in 2009, he came up against junkyard dog Tony Abbott, and he lost his nerve.  He was advised to call an election (see December 23 blog post from last year). He didn’t, and then didn’t figure out a way of climbing down from his climate position.  He dismissed a proposal from the Greens for an interim carbon tax. He … ah, I could go on. 

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians who talk about “great moral challenge” without showing skill or guts are worse than useless, because they encourage cynicism and fatalism, making it that much harder for those who come after them.

What happened next

Rudd bailed on climate.  This tanked his previously high approval ratings (which were already taking a dent, it’s true)  Rudd then ran off on a Mining Tax crusade. That came to an end, almost by accident, when his long-suffering and until-then loyal deputy Julia Gillard challenged for the leadership in June 2010.   Gillard got some carbon pricing legislation through, but at the cost of, well, everything.

This was all unnecessary. If Rudd had had skill or guts….

NB, for any ALPers – nope, never been a member of the Greens, and when you focus on their actions during the CPRS vote, you reveal that you are unwilling to admit that your guy was not as smart or courageous as he thought, or as he needed to be.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
United Nations

January 14, 2010 – Investors hold UN summit on #climate risk

Thirteen years ago, on this day, January 14, 2010 various investors met for the fourth meeting sponsored by the usual suspects, at the United Nations HQ in New York.

The Summit brought together more than 520 financial, corporate, and investor leaders with more than $22 trillion in combined assets. Speakers from the investment community, business, labor, and government highlighted the fact that private investment in climate change solutions is crucial for addressing the climate crisis and will not happen at the necessary scale without strong climate and energy policies that limit emissions and put a price on carbon.”

https://www.keywiki.org/2010_Investor_Summit_on_Climate_Risk

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .

The context was – a “Bali Roadmap” had been agreed for negotiations to culminate in a post-Kyoto Protocol deal at the December 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen. This meeting of investors will have been put in everyone’s diary months earlier, in anticipation of sunny uplands and money-making opportunities. In the event, Copenhagen ended in farce, and so the mood was probably quite downbeat. So it goes.

What I think we can learn from this

The investors won’t save us.  They will talk among themselves and cling on to the trappings of power, influence, intelligence, but none of it amounts to a bucket of warm spit. They have to delude themselves, but we don’t have to fall for the same delusions…

What happened next

They kept holding conferences. New buzzwords are invented, tossed around, age out, and are replaced by new buzzwords… Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide accumulates.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Arctic

January 11, 2010 – Bad news study about trees and the warming Arctic… 

 

Thirteen years ago, on this day, January 11, 2010 a report appeared about trees….

Contrary to scientists’ predictions that, as the Earth warms, the movement of trees into the Arctic will have only a local warming effect, UC Berkeley scientists modeling this scenario have found that replacing tundra with trees will melt sea ice and greatly enhance warming over the entire Arctic region.

Because trees are darker than the bare tundra, scientists previously have suggested that the northward expansion of trees might result in more absorption of sunlight and a consequent local warming.

Sanders,  R. (2010) .Trees invading warming Arctic will cause warming over entire region, study shows . Berkeley News, January 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

.

The context was, well, this is a predictable and predicted outcome.  Was it coming faster than expected (as many of the impacts have been)? Don’t know, and for my purposes, it doesn’t matter.

What I think we can learn from this

  1. Blah blah albedo and feedback loops blah blah.
  2. The world is changing, thanks to things we have started, are fully aware of and are so far unwilling/unable to stop. So it goes.

What happened next

Emissions kept climbing. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide kept climbing. It kept getting warmer.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Sanders,  R. (2010) .Trees invading warming Arctic will cause warming over entire region, study shows . Berkeley News, January 11. https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/01/11/arctic_warming/

And this from 2022-The march of the Arctic trees and what it reveals about the climate crisis

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/the-march-of-the-arctic-trees-and-what-it-reveals-about-the-cli/13726420

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation Politics

Jan 21 (2010) – The flub that sank a thousand policies #auspol

On this day, in 2010, – yes, another Australia one, but it “matters” –  Australian  Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, was caught out having to admit that his proposed “carbon pollution reduction scheme” was dead and that he was kicking the whole climate issue into the long legislative grass.

The CPRS was an insanely complex piece of legislation. Economist Ross Garnaut said of it in December 2008 that  “”Never in the history of Australian public finance has so much been given without public policy purpose, by so many, to so few,”“ – and that’s before the further watering down. Green groups had called it a give-away to the fossil fuel lobby, and the Green Party had refused to support it in parliament in late November 2009, meaning that it failed to become law.

Rudd was in Norwood, a leafy, and relatively affluent suburb of a large country town called Adelaide in South Australia.

As leader of the Australian Labor Party, Rudd had used climate change as a battering ram to differentiate himself from Prime Minister John Howard, and been elected to do something about the issue. As Prime Minister from late 2007, he had been playing chicken with the Liberal National Party, especially its leader Malcolm Turnbull, and had initially rejoiced when Turnbull was replaced by the dark horse (and subsequent wrecking ball) Tony Abbott. 

But the climate conference in December 2009 in Copenhagen didn’t go well. And in the aftermath, Rudd ignored the urging of senior Labour Party members to call a snap election on the question of climate policy, and then didn’t even come up with a plan B. So he was caught on the hop. We know all of this because the period is intensely reported in the battle of the memoirs. And I’d alert you to Philip Chubb’s Power Failure. Julia Gillard’s My Story, Paul Kelly’s Triumph and Demise. 


What happened next?  Australia entered a period of extreme volatility about climate change that  has brought down successive prime ministers and left the country with enormous policy failures around climate, energy, renewables, you name it. If Rudd had had the courage of his convictions, or even just taken on the Green Party idea of a temporary carbon tax while an Emissions Trading Scheme was devised/an election held, none of this needed to have happened. And here we are. 

Why this matters? Because I think you can make an argument that Australia’s confusion and cynicism about climate change and politics is directly related to Rudd’s failure to pursue the climate agenda to the ballot box again, if needs be.,

Rudd had enjoyed going on and on about climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation” (which it is). People believed him. Rudd’s popularity remained stratospheric. Then, when people decided that Rudd had been using climate as just another “positioning issue,” they felt cheated, betrayed, taken for fools. Rudd’s personal approval ratings took a massive hit. Climate was the only issue, but it certainly was the straw that broke the camel’s back. 

So if you, as a political leader, are going to use climate change as an issue, you better bring your A game and if your A game doesn’t work, you better switch to your B game, which is as good as your A game. And if you don’t, you will cause havoc. And it is now harder than in Rudd’s day, because everyone is cynical, everyone is kinda terrified, whether they can articulate it to themselves or not.