Tag: 2011

Categories
Denial Taiwan

May 16, 2011 – UKIPPER in Taiwan parliament  

Fifteen years ago, on this day, May 16th, 2011, 

I was conscious that I could not abuse the privilege by speaking for more than say five minutes — and that a dense, technical speech might challenge the interpreter, excellent though she clearly was.

So I expressed my regret that in the available time I could not develop the arguments or the detail — I could do no more than state my position (but I offered to send my “Cool Thinking” book to anyone interested — and had several requests for it afterwards).  I said that a large and increasing number of highly qualified scientists were challenging the orthodox view.  I pointed out that by general agreement mean global temperatures in the last hundred years had risen less than one degree C — a very modest and normal sort of change.  I said that many people thought that the small changes we had seen were entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate cycles.  I briefly mentioned the Roman Optimum/Dark Ages/Mediaeval Warm Period cycle, and said that we appeared to be moving towards a new 21st century climate optimum.

I said there were sound scientific reasons to believe that CO2 was not a major factor in climate change — though sadly I had no time to develop that point.

Ukipper MEP tells Taiwanese parliament CC is doubted… Comedy gold!!  http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/i-address-the-taiwanese-parliament-on-climate-change/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that there has always been a “head banger” wing to right wing thought. unconvinced by hippie greeny hoax bollocks like, oh, I don’t know, 19th century physics. And you can use words like anti-reflexivity, but ultimately it comes down to willful stupidity and selfishness, which is quickly followed by unwillingness to admit that they’ve been wrong for a long time, so they paint themselves into more and more corners.

The specific context was that UKIP was exemplary of this.

What I think we can learn from this is that stupid is going to stupid, and there’s no cure for stupid. 

What happened next. UKIP, I’m told, is still around, but the energy has moved to Reform, but that is in danger of splintering as well (Restore, Advance etc). 

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: 

May 16, 1972 – “Carbon and the Biosphere” symposium

May 16, 1973 Energy and how we live. UNESCO seminar at Flinders – All Our Yesterdays

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese says critical action on #climate being delayed by 20 years… #auspol

May 16, 2006 – UK Prime Minister Tony Blair goes nuclear…

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese, eco-warrior…

May 16 – Interview with Rosie, about zero population growth, zero climate progress, etc…

Categories
IPCC Renewable energy

May 12, 2011 – IPCC Special report on Renewable Energy Sources

Fifteen years ago, on this day, May 12th, 2011,

The IPCC has published the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN). On Monday, the summary for policymakers of the SRREN has been approved by government representatives for IPCC member countries at the 11th Session of Working Group III co-chaired by Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

2011 IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources May 12th, 2011

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was renewable energy as a substitute for fossil fuels. Because of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide emissions had been spoken of for many years. There had been various mostly inadequate, all of them mostly inadequate, some of them entirely inadequate schemes to promote renewables. 

Meanwhile, in 1990 the IPCC had delivered its First Assessment Report. Since then, it had delivered various other reports on mitigation technologies, etc, etc. 

The specific context was that it was very clear that the global response to climate was going to be net zero. The Copenhagen deal accord, which was supposed to replace Kyoto, had been useless, and so if you were bothering to read in 2011 a report about the importance of renewable energy, well, good luck to you. 

And of course, these reports don’t/can’t really anticipate non linear-growth and when renewables are going to kick in. So you have the over-supply of solar PV by Chinese factories. You have the enormous growth in offshore wind, and official reports about how long energy demand will continue to grow and how slow the uptake of renewables will be are always it seems overtaken by events.

What I think we can learn from this. We are a dumb species, for all our technology.

What happened next. Renewables finally kicked in in the 2020s. If you get a magnifying glass you might even see the impact on the Keeling Curve, the only measure that matters.

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: 

May 12, 1971 – Swedish protest against the culling of Stockholm trees (the “Elm Conflict”) – All Our Yesterdays

May 12, 1974 – an early dose of Hydrogen Hope/Hype

May 12, 1989 – USA says it will, after all, support the idea of a #climate treaty

May 12, 1995 – Another bet between cornucopians and realists

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

April 9, 2011 –  rally in Brisbane about coal exports

Fifteen years ago today

“Next Saturday it’s time for Queenslanders to let our politicians know that we support Queensland and Australia’s clean energy future – and the many new jobs and business opportunities it will create.

On Saturday 9th at 11am we’re uniting with our friends from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition , GetUp! , Greenpeace , Oxfam , Australian Conservation Foundation , World Wildlife Fund and Union Climate Connectors to support real action against climate change.

It’s time to make the big polluters pay their fair share and unlock Australia’s clean energy future. By acting now we can stay healthy, secure our environment, protect jobs and build new clean industries.

This is a family friendly gathering where we’ll hear speakers who understand the science and we’ll celebrate our positive message for change in Australia.

So come along on Saturday the 9th at 11am in King George Square, bring some mates and take a stand in support of fair and effective action on climate change.”

http://transitionkenmoredistrict.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/rally-for-climate-action-brisbane-april.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Queensland has always been a brutal place for descent of any kind, for. If you’re the wrong skin colour, the wrong sexual orientation, the wrong class, etc.. 

The specific context was that in 2011 the climate issue was still front page news – was especially front page news in Australia. Since late 2006 Australia’s political elites had been wrangling and wrestling with the very idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide – ostensibly in order to reduce Australia’s domestic emissions (actually it was largely about finding ways to continue with business as usual). There was nothing, of course, in this about exports of coal, because that was on someone else’s books

What I think we can learn from this is that an educated populace understands what’s at stake, but does not have the power to force the elected and unelected leaders of society to behave intelligently.

What happened next:  The carbon price was finally instituted. It began operation in July 22,012, but was abolished by Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in 2014 

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: 

 April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

April 9, 1991 – Peter Walsh goes nuts, urges BHP to sue Greenpeace – All Our Yesterdays

April 9, 2008 – US school student vs dodgy (lying) text books

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

Categories
Australia

November 8, 2011 – Australian polluters are going to have to pay (briefly)

Fourteen years ago, on this day, November 8th, 2011,

The Clean Energy Package (CEP) passed the Senate on 8 November 2011 with the support of the Greens and a vote of 36:32, becoming law on 1 July 2012.57

(Crowley, 2013: 377)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. 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 – as per November 8, 1989 – the general principle of a price on carbon had been around for over two decades.

The specific context was – Julia Gillard was only Prime Minister because after the 2010 election she had managed to cut deals with enough independent MPs (and a Green) for a minority government. Those independents and the Green insisted that she legislate a carbon price. There followed an extraordinarily intense campaign of fear-mongering and character assassination, but eventually Gillard got the legislation through.

What I think we can learn from this – Australia is a quarry with a state attached. It’s a settler colony riven with white supremacism, petro-masculinity and anti-reflexivity. There is resistance to this, of course.

What happened next – the carbon price was abolished in 2014.  Since then climate and energy policy has been a festering sore.

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 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly – All Our Yesterdays

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
Activism United States of America

November 6, 2011 – Keystone…

Fourteen years ago, on this day, November 6th, 2011,

More than 10,000 people descended on the White House to demonstrate opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline project, designed to transport oil from the Alberta tar sands fields in Canada to refineries in Texas.

http://www.mensjournal.com/travel/events/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-protests-in-the-u-s-20140919#ixzz3J9Tuzh2g

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. 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 Canadian tarsands were/are filthy energy, and getting it to customers via the Keystone was of course a crime against humanity and the biosphere.

The specific context was Copenhagen had failed, and Obama was not exactly standing in the way of shale and other fossil intensive projects.

What I think we can learn from this is that resistance works – or can work.

What happened next – 

“The pipeline became well known when the proposed KXL extension attracted opposition from environmentalists with concerns about climate change and fossil fuels. In 2015, KXL was temporarily delayed by President Barack Obama. On January 24, 2017, President Donald Trump took action intended to permit the pipeline’s completion. On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order[19] to revoke the permit[20] that was granted to TC Energy Corporation for the Keystone XL Pipeline (Phase 4). On June 9, 2021, TC Energy abandoned plans for the Keystone XL Pipeline”.

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 6, 1988 – Australian cartoonist nails response to #climate change

November 6, 1989 – Noordwijk conference – “alright, we will keep talking”

November 6, 1990 – Second World Climate Conference underway

November 6, 2001 – Howard plays the jobs-card vs Kyoto in Hunter Valley – All Our Yesterdays

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

October 12, 2011 – Carbon Pricing legislation passed

Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 12th, 2011,

“Carbon pricing (fixed for the first three years, then floating as part of an ETS) therefore passed the lower House of Representatives on 12 October 2011 with the support of Oakeshott, Windsor, Bandt and Wilkie with a vote of 74:72.” (Crowley, 2013: 377)

At 9.40am on 12 October, Gillard notches up a decisive victory with the passage through the Lower House of eighteen pieces of legislation making up the Clean Energy Future Bill which, inter alia, establishes the carbon price mechanism and its regulatory body.

(Walsh, 2013:87) Stalking of Julia Gillard

The day the carbon price bills passed the Parliament on 12 October 2011, journalist Annabel Crabb wrote for ABC The Drum online:

“Inside Rudd’s office, they used to speak of ‘kicking the can down the road’ – delaying decisions for a future date by which time conditions, it was hoped, would improve. Of all the criticisms that can validly be made of Julia Gillard’s Government, this is not one…

Julia Gillard is picking up the can that has been kicked down the road by John Howard, Kevin Rudd and, in his own way, Malcolm Turnbull…. There’s a compelling, almost cinematic quality to her determination; it’s like watching a slalom downhill skier deliberately hitting every peg.

(Cooney, 2015: 218)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. 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 putting a price on carbon – either by a straightforward tax or an emissions trading scheme (the latter has more scope for loopholes and the enrichment of consultants, so guess which was considered more “efficient”) – had been pushed since the late 80s. And the fossil fuel lobby and its ideological henchmen had done an extremely effective job of stopping it, repeatedly, with help from John Howard on several notorious occasions.

The specific context was that Kevin Rudd’s cowardice and incompetence on carbon pricing had tanked his reputation, and in the end cost him his job. His replacement, Julia Gillard, was forced by the electoral mathematics of her minority government to push through a carbon price, in the face of an extraordinary campaign of vitriol (looking at you, Murdoch media minions and worms).

What I think we can learn from this – women have to clean up men’s messes.

What happened next – the next government, of Tony Abbott, abolished the pricing mechanism. God help us all. 

(To be clear, the pricing mechanism was utterly inadequate as a response).

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: 

October 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published 

Categories
Australia

October 3, 2011 – “The End of Australia”

Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 3rd, 2011, Rolling Stone published the following by Jeff Goodell.

Climate Change and the end of Australia by Jeff Goodell

It’s near midnight, and I’m holed up in a rickety hotel in Proserpine, a whistle-stop town on the northeast coast of Australia. Yasi, a Category 5 hurricane with 200-mile-per-hour winds that’s already been dubbed “The Mother of All Catastrophes” by excitable Aussie tabloids, is just a few hundred miles offshore. When the eye of the storm hits, forecasters predict, it will be the worst ever to batter the east coast of Australia.

I have come to Australia to see what a global-warming future holds for this most vulnerable of nations, and Mother Nature has been happy to oblige: Over the course of just a few weeks, the continent has been hit by a record heat wave, a crippling drought, bush fires, floods that swamped an area the size of France and Germany combined, even a plague of locusts. “In many ways, it is a disaster of biblical proportions,” Andrew Fraser, the Queensland state treasurer, told reporters. He was talking about the floods in his region, but the sense that Australia – which maintains one of the highest per-capita carbon footprints on the planet – has summoned up the wrath of the climate gods is everywhere. “Australia is the canary in the coal mine,” says David Karoly, a top climate researcher at the University of Melbourne. “What is happening in Australia now is similar to what we can expect to see in other places in the future.” (continues)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 391ppm. 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 Australia’s population was well-informed about climate change “then called “the greenhouse effect” in 1987-1990. But that awareness and concern did not translate into strong action. 

The specific context was that Goodell had written a very good book called Big Coal – climate change is his beat. Meanwhile, the Australian policy elite had been tearing itself to pieces over a simple small measure – a price on carbon. Gillard’s minority government had just gotten it through when this issue of Rolling Stone hit the newsstands (are their newsstands anymore?)

What I think we can learn from this – we fucking knew.

What happened next. Gillard’s brave but utterly inadequate carbon pricing scheme was repealed in 2014. The emissions keep climbing, as does the kayfabe.

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

Goodell, J. 2011. The End of Australia. Rolling Stone, October 3.

Also on this day: 

October 3, 1970 & 2008: Nixon creates EPA, Brown creates DECC 

October 3, 1975 – Three members of Congress introduce first bill for a national #climate program.

October 3, 1997 – CNN pretends to grow a spine (Spoiler, stays jellyfish) – All Our Yesterdays

October 3, 2004 – John Howard revealed to have asked for fossil fuel CEOs to kill renewables. #auspol

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 24, 2011 – Rubbery numbers about Gillard’s carbon pricing proposal are disputed…

On this day 14 years ago, the trade publication Australian Mining ran the following – 

Climate change groups have dismissed the anti-carbon tax ad blitz launched on Sunday, and its ‘shaky numbers’.

Industry groups came together as the Australian Trade Industry Alliance (ATIA) to create an ad campaign to derail the Government’s carbon pricing scheme, NineMSN reports.

In the ads, ATIA says only $4.9 billion was generated in Europe over the first six and half year by a carbon tax, as compared to a potential $71 billion over the period in Australia.

The Climate Institute have hit out at the advertisement, saying neither the alliance nor its figures, should be believed.

Not only was the $71 billion amount $10 billion off, but the campaign failed to mention that over six years Europe will generate $143 billion, the group said.

“This new industry alliance is just another shady front group with more shaky numbers as they argue for more delay, exemptions or special treatments,” the institute’s John Connor stated.

Anti-carbon tax ads slammed – Australian Mining

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 Australian political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up repeatedly. A carbon tax had been mooted in 1989, and fierce battles against it fought, especially in 1994-5. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard had defeated various emissions trading schemes, but eventually the tide turned and from 2007 onwards the political and economic elites had been wrangling. Kevin Rudd had comprehensively failed and his assassin/replacement Julia Gillard had hoped to kick the issue into the long grass, but parliamentary arithmetic did not allow (i.e. her government relied upon Greens and pro-climate action independents).

The specific context was that Gillard had announced the details of the scheme, and of course a huge anti- campaign had begun…

What I think we can learn from this is that even the mildest of actions are not acceptable to those who really run the show.

What happened next was that Gillard’s legislation got through (she had a remarkable record, btw, of getting legislation through).  But the carbon pricing scheme was then abolished by the next PM, a thug by the name of Tony Abbott, whose down party found him unacceptable a little over a year after that.

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 24, 1977 – Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 12, 2011 – Tony Abbott and the The Australia Institute

Fourteen years ago, on this day, July 12th, 2011, 

The whole purpose of the carbon tax is to phase out the coal industry…. Now, I think that the coal industry is the foundation of a modern economy. I think that affordable power is essential to Australia’s economic future. I don’t want to close down the coal industry… the Government’s own figures they say that coal will go from 80 percent of our power generation to 10 percent or 25 percent, if you include clean coal using various forms of sequestration. So, the Government’s own figures involve a radical downsizing and ultimate demise of the coal industry (emphasis added Abbott,2011a).

T.,Abbott, 2011a.Transcript of joint doorstop interview:Dandenong South, Victoria, 12 July:JuliaGillard’scarbontax. 〈http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/down load/media/pressrel/922506/upload_binary/922506.pdf〉.

And

12 July 2011: Australia Institute publishes a detailed analysis of direct action and building on past schemes suggests around $100 billion would be needed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. 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 the Liberal Party, after a brief flirtation with competing for small-g green votes in 1990, had decided to stick with their mining mates and the culture war (unlike Labor, which wants to stick with its mining mates while NOT having a culture war).

The specific context was that from late 2006 the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide became “mainstreamed” (after long long resistance). But in late 2009 Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader, and ended that fragile consensus. He used carbon pricing as a scare campaign about the “great big tax on everything” on his way to become Prime Minister.

What I think we can learn from this is that political parties are not meritocracies around intelligence, integrity or vision. They are bear pits, where the most vicious and determined rise to the top.

What happened next. Abbott became Prime Minister (god help us) and abolished the (inadequate) carbon pricing scheme that Julia Gillard had managed to push through. And the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Up and up and up of course.

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

June 14, 2011 – climate change threat to Australia’s top wines

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 14th, 2011,

CLIMATE change is a ticking time-bomb for Australia’s $5.5 billion wine industry and threatens some of our favourite wines with extinction, a study has revealed.

CSIRO climate change scientist and wine expert Leanne Webb examined ripening times across Australia and found grapes were maturing faster in recent warmer temperatures, affecting quality and taste.

Some growers say they are already modifying their winemaking to cope with the effects and at least one major player is taking steps to move production further south.

By Robert Burton-Bradley, NewsComAu

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/climate-change-threatens-australias-wine-industry-study-warns/news-story/afae2b1bc6ee62fb8858df1ee52019de

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was Australian scientists had been warning about the impacts of climate change on agriculture since the late 1970s.  It wasn’t a secret.

The specific context was that a rough coalition of people, organisations, business sectors were trying to work together to support the Gillard “carbon pricing” effort (see AOY passim ad nauseam) and this – “wine will be affected” was one of the memes to get across how Serious it all was.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that we just haven’t created and sustained the sorts of institutions that help us understand a complex world and relatively simple problems like climate change (I said relatively!).  And in the absence of those institutions (life-long self-directed learning, workers education associations, independent civil society) then people are prey to all sorts of weapons of mass distraction and mental immiseration.  And here we are.

As “active citizens” see above. The institutions were destroyed in the aftermath of World War 2….

Academics might like to ponder who they are writing for.

What happened next. Gillard’s legislation passed, possibly had some effect and was then abolished by the next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.

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.

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).

Also on this day: 

June 14, 1979 – the messy inclusion of climate change in energy politics – All Our Yesterdays