Tag: 2012

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

June 19, 2012 – Abbott having to defend renewables. Oh the hilarity.

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 19th, 2012,

TENSIONS have erupted in the Coalition over a key climate change policy less than two weeks before the introduction of the carbon tax from July 1.

Tony Abbott was yesterday forced to stare down a backbench challenge to the party’s support for the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target as senior backbenchers blamed it for adding to electricity prices amid a backlash over last week’s 18 per cent price increases in NSW and South Australia.

Maher, S. 2012. Abbott forced to quell backbench climate rift. The Australian, 20 June, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that the Liberal Party had gone into the 1990 federal election with a stronger emissions reduction target than labour, but had lost that election very narrowly and felt betrayed by big green organisations and green voters generally, and then they become very actively hostile to all things environmental, and especially the problem of carbon dioxide build up. 

Tony Abbott had become leader of the Liberals in December, or late November, 2009 having given a speech where he said that the science of climate change was absolute crap. He had successfully demolished Kevin Rudd, (well, Rudd had helped demolish himself, to be fair) and also made endless attacks on Rudd’s successor as Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Abbott was basically an unguided missile, A WRECKING BALL, a very limited human being, 

The specific context was that by this point, he had lost the fight to prevent a great big tax on everything i.e., Gillard’s emissions trading scheme; and while he was still Leader of the Opposition, there were ructions, and some of his back benchers were getting high on their own supply and were blocking stuff that Abbott found it useful not to have blocked.

What I think we can learn is this: that when you unleash demons, they don’t always do what you want.

What happened next: Abbott continued to be an effective leader of the opposition. I don’t mean that as a compliment, necessarily. And became prime minister in 2013 thanks to the Murdoch press having demonised Julia Gillard to an astonishing degree and Abbott was then toppled by his own party, with the most, perhaps the most hilarious moment being when a third of his party voted for an empty chair because, rather than him as leader.

He is now back, as President of the Liberals, which will doubtless have the young, and especially the young women, flocking to join the Libs.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

https://theconversation.com/who-tilts-at-windmills-explaining-hostility-to-renewables-77762

References

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 19, 1989 – George Brown speech to Student Pugwash – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood” – All Our Yesterdays

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

June 16, 2012 – Lenore Taylor versus CCS

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 16th, 2012, Australian journalist Lenore Taylor, took stock of CCS in an article called “Climate strategy up in smoke.”

IT WAS the technology that was going to help underpin the nation’s climate change strategy. In 2009, the then prime minister, Kevin Rudd, pledged to ”lead the world” in carbon capture and storage technology, which traps carbon dioxide emissions, permanently storing them deep underground. 

 Taylor, L. (2012) Climate strategy up in smoke. Sydney Morning Herald June 16th

http://www.smh.com.au/national/climate-strategy-up-in-smoke-20120615-20f7i.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that in Australia, CCS had first popped up in the late 1990s in the Geodisc programme, and then a couple of years later, post Kyoto, in the efforts of the Prime Minister’s Science and Industry Council, then chaired by Robin Batterham, who was part time and the rest of its time, who was the chief technology officer of Rio Tinto. And then from 2004 onwards, there had been a series of announcements and conferences and legislation about CCS, the Queensland Government had pushed for it as well under Premier Peter Beattie. Also you’d had Kevin Rudd in 2007 Eight, using CCS as a way of keeping coal miners on side while still attracting liberals, small l liberal voters and those concerned about the environment, thus CCS performed the function of squaring the circle.

The specific context was that the physics didn’t add up, the money didn’t add up, and it all fell over in late 2010 and here we see Lenore Taylor, who had been covering climate since the early 1990s, writing about how it all fell over.

What I think we can learn is this: fantasy eventually meets reality and there’ll be a smart somebody there to report on that, usually, hopefully… 

What happened next: CCS has staggered on because it’s too useful, and in fact, it’s pretty much the only story that the coal industry has to tell, though there’s also all this shit about or there was this HELE – “high emissions, low efficiency” (sic) power plants, and the money that the Australian Coal Association put aside was repurposed to publicise the coal industry. And meanwhile, Gorgon, the Chevron CCS facility, has continued to massively underperform.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

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 16, 1965 – Rothschild writes to Lovelock – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1971 – “Ecology Action” formed in Sydney. – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1972 – David Bowie and (Five Years until) the End of the World. Also, Stockholm – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1994 – Australian business want international allies – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 2000 – Energy the Changing Climate report released – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 2, 2012 – RIP Deni Greene

On this day June 2nd, 2012 Deni Greene died.

Greene had done some of the early economic modelling (1990) about how Australia could cut emissions and better off. The work was ignored, and then swamped by corporate bullshit…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm.  As of 2026, 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 for this was that  Deni Greene had come to Australia at some point in the 70s or 80s as an economist and in the battles over the economic responses to the greenhouse effect, as it was then called, in 1989-91 did a lot of economic modelling, especially around energy efficiency, to show that it would be possible and in fact beneficial, to take strong action. The pro-coal ministries were not impressed, partly, I think, because of the argument, probably also because she was, in fact, only a woman. 

And by 91 PricewaterhouseCoopers had been commissioned to release or to produce a whole bunch of other reports, and the modelling wars were underway. 

What I think we can learn is this: it’s now almost 40 years of failure on climate change, and we seem to have learned nothing, and we seem to be incapable of learning anything, if at the micro, meso or macro level. But pretty soon, we will be learning – and the lesson today is how to die.  

What happened next:  I don’t know what Greene did with the rest of her life, after the early 90s, but it must have been pretty painful to watch all the shit unfold, but that is what happens to people, isn’t it,

Vale Deni Greene – consumer representative

The Bob Brown Foundation has set up the ‘Deni Greene’ awards, btw.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

October 4, 1990 – “Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder”

References

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).

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 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1977 – Australian scientists SCOPE the climate problem – All Our Yesterdays

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

June 2, 2002 – Low carbon spaces, eh… SDC RIP – All Our Yesterdays

June 2, 2005 – Climate change will not, in fact, be Terminated – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism Australia

April 13, 2012 – Bob Brown announces resignation

Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, Bob Brown announces he’s stepping down…

The leader of the third force in Australian politics announced his resignation from parliament on Friday, but said his party would maintain its support for prime minister Julia Gillard’s fragile minority government.

Bob Brown, 67, announced his resignation as leader of the Greens and said he would leave the Senate in June after 16 years to “make room for renewal” in the leftwing environmental party.

Brown, who has led the party since its inception in 1992, is Australia’s first openly gay federal parliamentarian. An opponent of the Iraq war, he came into the spotlight in 2003 after being banned from parliament for 24 hours for heckling the US president George W Bush.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/13/australian-greens-leader-quits-brown

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Bob Brown had been fighting for peace and ecological sanity for a very long time, and in some of the most hostile places in Australia that you could do that – namely Tasmania and parliament.

The specific context was that after the 2010 election the Greens had held the balance of power, and Gillard’s minority government was forced to institute a carbon price, the so called Multi Party Committee on climate change, and with this done, Bob Brown could announce a very well-deserved retirement from formal politics. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there are some people who are particularly well. They have wonderful qualities in terms of being able to rally others, serve as a focal point for other people’s projections and just to also do the work .

What happened next:  Bob Brown has continued his activism, sometimes with more success, sometimes with less. I would say the 2019 effort in Queensland was fairly ill-judged, but I don’t think that the Shorten Labor lot would have gotten up anyway. There is a documentary about Bob Brown about which I have very mixed feelings, which are distinct from Brown himself, who, by all accounts and by all reckoning, is a very very admirable character. 

Also on this day: 

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

April 13, 1992 – Denialist tosh – “The origins of the alleged scientific consensus”

April 13, 2011 – GE and others say Gillard is on right track – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

July 3, 2012 – Emerson stands by “Horror Movie” performance

Thirteen years ago, on this day, July 3rd, 2012,

Emerson stands by Horror Movie performance  https://www.news.com.au/national/emerson-stands-by-horror-movie-performance/news-story/4b07072f54f607771047b831e85448d4

The singing was bad. And now the Trade Minister has been slammed for being flippant.

oe Hockey has slammed Craig Emerson as a “circus clown” who doesn’t take the concerns of Australians seriously.

“During a television interview yesterday, Mr Emerson started dancing and singing “no Whyalla wipeout, there on my TV” to the tune of 1975 Skyhooks single, Horror Movie.

Mr Emerson’s reference to Whyalla follows comments from Opposition Leader Tony Abbott that the carbon tax would wipe the South Australian town off the map.”

By Malcolm Farr and National Political Editor

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 that Australian political elites had decided in 1990 not to do anything serious about climate change. Fun fact – it was Craig Emerson who bashed out, under Paul Keating’s orders – the loophole in the “Interim Planning Target” in October 1990 that meant Environment Minister Ros Kelly could go to the Second World Climate Conference with her head high.

The specific context was that the LNP Opposition, led by the brutally effective moron Tony Abbott (easily the most effective opposition leader ever. Pity about how he handled the PM gig…) had been using “no carbon tax” as a wrecking ball against Prime Minister Rudd, then Gillard, since December 2009.  This was in the midst of all that.

What I think we can learn from this Joe Hockey was not nearly as smart as Joe Hockey thought. Craig Emerson can’t sing.

What happened next  Abbott became Prime Minister, abolished the carbon price. Australia is a criminal country. Its elites have destroyed the prospects for a habitable continent, in the most part.  Went to the Right Schools and Universities but somehow managed to be thick ecocidal turds. Go figure. 

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 Kingdom

February 22, 2012 – “Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act” holds a meeting…

Thirteen years ago, on this day, February 22nd, 2012,

On 22 February 2012, Richard Lindzen gave a talk to invited guests in a rented room in the Palace of Westminster.  Note that contrary to some reports about the seminar, it was not presented to UK Parliament.  Any member of the UK legislature can rent one of the many Palace of Westminster rooms for private purposes; that is what happened in this instance.

Lindzen’s presentation, the slides of which can be viewed here and video can be seen here, appeared very similar to presentations given by Christopher Monckton.  In fact, Lindzen’s talk contained many of the same climate myths we recently debunked from Monckton, which frankly does not reflect well on Lindzen.  The slides and presentation are almost identical to  Lindzen’s testimony to the US House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing in November 2010, which in turn was almost identical to a presentation he gave at a Heartland Institute conference 6 months earlier.  In fact, Lindzen did not even update some of his graphs with data beyond mid-2010 for his UK presentation.

Lindzen’s presentation contained so many misrepresentations that it would be too time consuming to address them all; however, we will address most of them here, including the base on which Lindzen built his house of misinformation cards.

https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-london-illusions.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was tthat there was a very small number of very determined Conservative MPs and grandees who did not nod through the 2008 Climate Change Act. The had said from the get go that it was unnecessary and or unaffordable and or impossible. Tey did what these people always do, which is get a “prestigious” scientist to come along and tell them that they were right. Lindzen has a history of being, frankly, wrong.

What I think we can learn from this

You hold a meeting in the House of Commons, you put out a press release. It encourages your side. It might get some press coverage. It might cause some people to think that there is still a debate about the existence of climate change and the severity of it. Bish, Bosh, job done. 

What happened next is that the anti Climate Change Act people kept going, and finally, in 2023 the elite consensus around the need to do something (a lot) about climate change fractured when Rishi Sunak thought that he could cling to power when he and his underlings totally misinterpreted a by election result in London.  Hilarity did not ensue. 

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.

See also

Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.

Misrepresentation from Lindzen
Categories
Australia

June 19, 2012 – Abbott is more pro-climate than his knucklehead backbenchers

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 19th, 2012, leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott had to herd some of the more lunatic cats.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

TENSIONS have erupted in the Coalition over a key climate change policy less than two weeks before the introduction of the carbon tax from July 1.

Tony Abbott was yesterday forced to stare down a backbench challenge to the party’s support for the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target as senior backbenchers blamed it for adding to electricity prices amid a backlash over last week’s 18 per cent price increases in NSW and South Australia.

Maher, S. 2012. Abbott forced to quell backbench climate rift. The Australian, 20 June, p.1.

The context was that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Emissions Trading Scheme was about to take effect. Although the Liberals were riding high in the polls that must have bruised their self-love, and trigger-happy backbenchers were needing to feel strong. They were opposing renewables to such an extent that it was electrically damaging. And the human wrecking ball Tony Abbott, of all people, had to tell them to cool their jets.

What we learn is that in the midst of a culture war or legislative war, the red mist descends, and someone has to say “hey, cool it.” And on this occasion, believe it or not, it was Tony Abbott.

What happened next? Abbott took office in mid-2013. He managed to disappear the emissions trading scheme, but not the renewable support in ARENA and CEFC. 

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: 

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood”

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

Categories
Australia

April 6, 2012 – Genetically-modified humans?

Twelve years ago, on this day, April 6th, 2012 the Sydney Morning Herald runs a piece on genetically modified humans. In it S. Matthew Liao talks about ‘a radical suggestion for fighting climate change’

S. Matthew Liao talks to the Sydney Morning Herald about changing ourselves biologically in order to fight climate change.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/final-frontier-of-climate-policy–remake-humans-20120405-1wfo6.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Copenhagen had ended in failure. The pieces of the Ming-ing International negotiation vase that had been dropped that day, were still being glued back together. It wasn’t at all clear that there would be any societal economic, political, technological response to carbon dioxide buildup worthy of the name. And so of course, attention turns to the science fiction ideas of simply adapting to a much warmer world shipped with genetically modifying corn. Why not do the same for humans? Replicants ”I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe”, etc, etc. 

What we learn is that everyone’s hungry for publicity and so outlandish shit will get printed. And somewhere in a lab in Switzerland or Boston or Tel Aviv or London, or Sydney Shanghai or Rio de Janeiro this sort of shit has probably been attempted. At least it would make a good sci fi novel. And indeed, there is that very mediocre film, The Bourne Legacy. 

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 6, 2006 – Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

April 6, 2006 – the anti-climate dam of John Howard begins to crack…

Categories
Australia Denial

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.

Twelve years ago, on this day, March 7th, 2012, a Queensland politician showed exactly who he was.

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation to counter what he calls ‘the radical Green movement’, he immediately reached out to Gina Rinehart. Christensen sent her an email setting out his proposals to attack environmental groups that he claims want to hold up mining projects in the region. The exchange has now leaked.

Christensen wrote: ‘One quick thought was to hold a major rally “In Defence of the North Queensland Way of Life” in Mackay where we would encourage people in farming, fishing and mining to descend on the town for a mass show of support against the southern Green interests. If this was to be successful, we could then quickly move this movement into a formal blue collar/workers organisation that advocated for the North and against the greenies.”

There was a need to act quickly, he said, but the plan could only succeed if Rinehart and others like her got behind it. Not surprisingly, the email, dated March 7 [2012], specifically mentioned financial support.

Oakes, L. 2012. Gina and Clive are Labor’s best assets. The Australian, 26 May.

Oakes, 2013: 193

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia now had an emissions trading scheme. The nutjob army that had been riled by defeat was looking for a compensatory consolation victory. You’ve got to keep people busy. You’ve got to keep your name in the paper. So Senator George Christiansen (three words that really don’t belong together in the English language) was taking money from a mining magnate to keep the culture war going. Happy days. 

What I think we can learn from this Is that culture wars need their lieutenants, need their logistics. And you can see it unfolding because it’s happening in a democracy. You can also see it in a dictatorship, I guess, but slightly more difficult. I digress. 

What happened next

Christensen’s “colourful” personal life eventually meant that he was more of a liability than an asset and he is no longer a senator.  The coal kept being mined, and exported.

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 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

Categories
Australia

November 12, 2012 – Greenpeace smeared by Queensland extractors, of course

Eleven years ago, on this day, November 12, 2012, the Queensland Resources Council got their retaliation in first…

Greenpeace hysteria threatens communities

Nov 12 2012

An internationally-funded campaign to shut down Queensland’s export coal industry was relying on exaggeration and misrepresentation in a bid to undermine regional communities, the Queensland Resources Council (QRC) told a conference in Brisbane today.

https://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=3185

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Queensland Resources Council members knew that there was lots of money to be made in digging up and exporting stuff. And they didn’t like Greenpeace getting between them and their profits. And rather than argue the facts or talk about what the economy of the 21st century would need to be they decided – inevitably – to smear Greenpeace and use the lovely code word “hysterical,” which is always very gendered. Men don’t get called hysterical or possibly only homosexual men. And what they’re trying to do here is say that extractivism is man’s work. 

What I think we can learn from this

The gender aspect of this stuff (framing opponents as ‘hysterical) is worth considering (Cara Daggett etc).

What happened next

The attacks on environmentalists continued and escalated. Even WWF was in the firing line soon enough. And of course, the Queensland Government sat there and facilitated evermore mining. Of course it did. 

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.