Tag: 2011

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Carbon Pricing Denial

March 5, 2011 – Australian “wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork”

Twelve years ago, on this day, March 5, 2011 veteran Australian political commentator Laurie Oakes nailed the climate denialist nutters.

“Wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork. The mad and menacing phone calls to independent MP Tony Windsor are just one indication. There are plenty of others online. The carbon tax and Tony Abbott’s call for a people’s revolt have crazies foaming at the mouth. You see it on the ‘Revolt Against the Carbon Tax’ Facebook page, for example. Like this message from a Gillard-hater about a rally in front of Parliament House being planned for March 23: ‘Just like Egypt we stay there and protest continuously until she and her cronies, Bob Brown Greens etc are ousted! We have got to get rid of this Godless mistress of deceit.”’

Oakes, L. 2011. Loonies latch on to the politics of hate. The Australian, 5 March.

Oakes, 2013: 86

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was an incredibly heated culture war that had been constructed around the question of having a price on carbon emissions. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott had had multiple positions on carbon pricing and climate change (the Howard government had gone to the 2007 election with such a policy). Abbott admitted to being a weather vane n the issue

By March 2011 he had seen off Kevin Rudd and had been reportedly willing to sell his ass to become Prime Minister. In February 2011 Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard had announced that there would be an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price for two years. And as oaks puts it, all the wingnuts came out to play…

What I think we can learn from this

That settler colonies don’t deal well with the notion of environmental limits especially if someone who is only a woman is in charge.

That it is partly possible to import culture war techniques from the United States. They won’t work perfectly in other countries, but for a while, they give the appearance of effectiveness. 

You also want to think about McCright and Dunlap 2011, anti reflexivity as part of the picture underneath all of this.

What happened next

Well, on the 23rd of March, there was the infamous rally with Abbott being photographed next to placards that talked about “Bob Brown’s Bitch” and “Ditch the Witch ”. The wingnuts kept coming out to play but with less than less efficacy. It’s not just left wing groups that suffer from burnout and emotacycles.

Abbott got the opportunity to show the world what a smart and effective leader he could be from September 2013.  “Oops” doesn’t begin to cover it.

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
Academia Australia Science Scientists

February 18, 2011 – Scientist quits advisor role (because ignored on climate?)

Twelve years ago, on this day, February 18, 2011 Australia’s chief scientific advisor Penny Sackett downed tools.
She said in her statement – “”Institutions, as well as individuals, grow and evolve, and for both personal and professional reasons the time is now right for me to seek other ways to contribute.” (source)

This move was regarded at the time – rightly or wrongly – as a rebuke/frustration with the lack of ambition on climate policy.

 https://www.smh.com.au/national/tensions-blamed-as-science-chief-quits-20110218-1azm2.html  and 

https://skepticalscience.com/Australias-departing-Chief-Scientist-on-climate-change.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Prime Minister Julia Gillard was in the middle of a shitstorm over climate policy that continued for months (Feb to August 2011).

What I think we can learn from this

Offering scientific advice to politicians is at best a very tough gig. At worst, you’re a fig leaf/complicit.

What happened next

Following chief scientific advisors were more willing to sing the praises of fantasy technologies and keep their heads down.  Whether or not current and future generations are well-served by that is, well….

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

Categories
Australia

February 10, 2011 – Australia gets a “Climate Commission”

Twelve years ago, on this day, February 10 2011, Australian Environment Minister Greg Combet had something to say…

“The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, has announced the establishment of an independent Climate Commission, appointing the leading science communicator – Professor Tim Flannery – as Chief Commissioner.

Combet said the Climate Commission would provide expert advice and information on climate change to the Australian community.

“The Climate Commission has been established by the Gillard government to provide an authoritative, independent source of information for all Australians,” he said. “It will provide expert advice on climate change science and impacts, and international action. It will help build the consensus required to move to a clean energy future.”

The Climate Commission would have a public outreach role, he said, to help build greater understanding and consensus about reducing Australia’s carbon pollution.

Other members of the Climate Commission are Professor Will Steffen, Professor Lesley Hughes, Dr Susannah Eliott, Gerry Hueston and Roger Beale. The commissioners have expertise in a range of areas including climate change science, science communications, business, public policy and economics.

https://www.sustainabilitymatters.net.au/content/sustainability/news/launch-of-the-climate-commission-739695248

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard was trying to make a move in the climate wars which had sprung up from late 2009 when the Liberal Party’s Tony Abbott decided to call the science of climate change “absolute crap.” He became a lightning rod for a lot of people’s dissatisfaction, especially in the National Party. The idea of a commission was, I believe, that of Christine Milne of the Greens, not that Labor would necessarily be willing to admit that; Labor had been forced into an uneasy collaboration with the Greens because of the finely balanced 2010 election. The Greens insisted that Labor grasp the climate change nettle again, rather than kicking it all into the long grass.

What I think we can learn from this

These sort of top-down groups of experts are useful, but they need to be supplemented by vibrant, long lasting civil society organisations and social movement organisations. However, that requires people to innovate and do stuff differently and not fall victim to the usual movement pathologies such as the smugosphere, the emotacycle, ego-foddering etc.

What happened next

The Commission was destroyed by Tony Abbott, and then had no trouble setting up as “The Climate Council” in September 2013 (see this Guardian article).

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

Categories
Canada

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

Twelve years ago, on this day, January, 20, 2011, Shell tried to change the subject.

“After being called by an official from Royal Dutch Shell regarding the April 2011 conference in Banff, Alta., that was to focus on “less controversial” aspects of the climate-change debate, such as energy efficiency and transportation demand management, [Canadian associate assistant deputy minister Mike] Beale felt compelled to state what was missing. “I had to point out – nicely – that the initiative seems to sidestep the gorilla in the room of emission reductions from O&G (oil and gas), but that otherwise, it seems like a great idea,” wrote Beale in the Jan. 20, 2011 email, released to Postmedia News through access to information legislation.”

http://mikedesouza.com/2012/09/27/oil-and-gas-is-gorilla-in-room-on-feds-climate-change-policies-environment-canada/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that the post-Copenhagen conversation was grinding on (just because Canada had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, that didn’t mean the ant-climate action folks had downed tools).

This should also be seen in the context of Shell’s multi-decade efforts at minimising, distracting and subject-changing (they don’t do outright denial anymore, it’s all about the predatory delay).

What I think we can learn from this

Trying to have an honest conversation about what we are up against and what needs to be done will continue to be difficult when your interlocutors want to derail the conversation, and will use subtle means to do it sometimes….

What happened next

Shell has indulged in all sorts of cool-washing, involving hipster women  and also Jean-luc Godard rip offs. 

On existentialism, guilt, Godard and … Shell’s corporate framing strategy

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