Tag: 2013

Categories
United Kingdom

July 5, 2013 – that turd Michael Gove …drops plans to drop climate from curriculum

Eleven years ago, on this day, July 5th, 2013, Michael Gove had to back down on one of his more prickish gambits.

Michael Gove has abandoned plans to drop climate change from the geography national curriculum.

The education secretary’s decision represents a victory for Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, who has waged a sustained battle in Whitehall to ensure the topic’s retention.

The move to omit it from the new curriculum took on a symbolic status. Gove insisted it was part of his drive to slim an unwieldy curriculum down, to give teachers greater freedom to show their initiative. 

Patrick Wintour in the Guardian

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the “Conservatives” hate anything that reminds people that the status quo that they are trying to conserve is already killing some, and is going to kill everyone. And so they would like to de-educate the young. 

What we learn here is that these sorts of decisions can be defeated. If there’s a broad enough coalition and there’s enough outrage. And the politician doesn’t think the game is worth the candle. Fine. But Read on to what happened next.

What happened next on climate is it ostensibly allegedly stayed within the national curriculum. But look, what else got torched? Have a look at this article from the Morning Star on the ninth of December 2023, pointing out what Gove was able to remove from the curriculum. I don’t know, maybe there was a similar effort to push back. But it won’t have had as many educated white people behind it, as the climate campaign did. I’m not saying that all white people are racist, or that all the people who campaigned on the climate curriculum issue are hypocrites at all. I’m just saying that for some issues people who care about them are able to mobilise this kind of cultural capital, social capital, and on other issues it’s that much harder. 

And I can see how people pushing on other issues might notice that we were silent when they needed help. I personally don’t recall being involved. And this is to my shame in either campaign. But at this point I wasn’t in a good headspace and I was focusing on Manchester City Council, those are my excuses. 

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 5, 1973 – The Predicament of Mankind discussed

July 5, 1989 – Nuclear tries to regain some credibility, latching on to greenhouse

Categories
Australia

April 23, 2013 – Power Companies want Abbott to rethink Direct Action

Eleven years ago, on this day, April 23rd, 2013, power companies tried to influence the “mind” of Tony Abbott, who was a dead-cert to become Prime Minister at the forthcoming Federal Election.

Power companies have urged the Coalition to rethink its ‘direct action’ carbon plan, saying that it may cause them more difficulty than the Government’s emissions trading scheme.

The Australian Financial Review reports that the Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) has urged the Coalition to change its plan to immediately scrap the carbon tax if it wins the federal election on September 14.

ESSA represents big power companies such as Origin, TRUenergy and International Power. It has supported an emissions trading scheme for a long time and the recent….

https://www.manmonthly.com.au/power-companies-urge-coalition-to-change-carbon-plan/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Abbott was clearly going to become prime minister, Labor’s opinion poll ratings were in the toilet. His idiotic “direct action” policy was going to become law of the land. And the power companies would be adversely affected because it was opaque and stupid. And so you know, “be careful what you wish for you might get it.” They had either resisted Gillard’s carbon tax or played dead. And now there were going to be consequences for those actions. 

What we learn is that businesses are fantastically short-sighted despite their claim to do long term planning or being responsible, farsighted, on behalf of investors, etc. And here we are. 

What happened next? Abbott became prime minister. He abolished Gillard’s Emissions Trading Scheme, instituted his moronic direct action. Emissions didn’t go down the way they needed to. And here we are. 

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 23, 1954 – Irish Times runs carbon dioxide/climate story. Yes, 1954.

April 23, 1998 – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper published.

April 23, 1970 – book review nails coming #climate problems…

April 23, 2009 – denialists caught denying their own scientists…

Categories
United Kingdom

November 21, 2013 – “Cut the Green Crap” said UK Prime Minister David Cameron

Ten years ago, on this day, November 21, 2013, a report is published in The Guardian that then UK Prime Minister Dave Cameron (and now Foreign Secretary) had told his civil servants to “cut the green crap.”

21 Nov 2013 Guardian reports on “Cut the Green Crap”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/david-cameron-green-crap-comments-storm

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 that seven years previously David Cameron had been all “hug a husky” while using the environment to detoxify the Tory brand (how’s that working out for you?). Once in government, he had been forced by the Liberal Democrats to make some moves on climate. But he was head of a party that, on the whole, does not accept the science, does not understand the depth of the problem we face. And so because they wanted to save money, they decided to “cut the green crap.”. 

What I think we can learn from this

It’s a banal point, but if you take politicians at face value, and you don’t understand that they know what you want to hear, and they’re incentivized – especially when in opposition – to say it to you, then you will be … one word is disappointed. Another word is shafted. The only way you’re going to get good results or less terrible results is by holding the feet of politicians to the fire. But to do that, you need a variety of mechanisms. It can’t just be sending off a check to Friends of the Peace or Green Earth or whatever. You also need to be part of granular, resilient radical, social movement organisations. But the problem there is that these organisations do not exist and if they are started they usually quickly flame out or become tribute bands to themselves mindlessly performing zombie rituals, which made them feel good at the outset.

I may have digressed.

What happened next

The “green crap” was cut. Fracking was promoted. Nuclear had yet more money thrown at it. Then May and Johnson made nice sounding statements. Then Truss wasn’t around long enough to swing the axe, but Sunak….

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

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

Ten years ago, on this day, November 14, 2013, one of the two senators for Rhode Island, gives his 50th consecutive weekly speech about climate change.

2013 Sheldon Whitehouse and his weekly climate speech http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/time-to-wake-up-weekly-climate-speech

but then, “On November 14, 2013, he gave his 50th weekly Senate speech on climate change. The series of speeches highlight the science of climate change and offer paths for the United States to take strong action.”

(from wikipedia)

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 Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had been talking about climate every week. And the broader context is that the United Nations process was slowly grinding back into momentum. In the US, Obama had only tried anything substantive in his first term. And here we are. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there are elected politicians who get it and are willing to do the hard work of alerting people.

What happened next

Whitehouse kept going. He thought he’d quit at 279 speeches, but nope…

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/in-the-news/this-senator-thought-he-had-given-his-279th-and-final-speech-on-climate-change-he-was-wrong

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 Denial United Kingdom

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

Ten years ago, on this day, November 8, 2013, John Howard gave a speech at the Global Warming “Policy” “Foundation” with the title “One Religion is Enough“

and 

Same day – Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines.

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 that John Howard had been booted out as Prime Minister, and even MP, partly because he’d been such a terrible dickhead on climate, as befits old white conservative men. 

The other context is that some “charity” called the Global Warming Policy Foundation had been set up and were holding annual lectures. So it seemed like a good idea to get little Johnny on.

It’s an interesting title, isn’t it, “one religion is enough”? Well, if we’re only going to have one religion, my vote is a for either a particularly humane form of Buddhism, or Fuck it, let’s just go to paganism. Let’s get rid of the bearded sky gods. And especially when the bearded sky gods have been whittled down to one, because that seems to have caused no end of trouble. Or, if not caused, it been a useful adjunct to keeping that particular shit show on the road…

Aaand breathe….

What I think we can learn from this is that anti-reflexive organisations are good at gaming the media, they knew that this would get outrage and clicks. Makes them feel like they exist. 

What happened next

Well, the weather vane, Tony Abbott also gave a speech at the GWPF, and it’ll be interesting to see if the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds Scott Morrison too much of a reputational risk to them.

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 Denial

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

Ten years ago, on this day, September 23, 2013, the Australian state broadcaster explained – for the umpteenth time – the dreadful lies the radio shock jocks were peddling.

On 23 September 2013 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program Media Watch explored a textbook example of why too many Australians and their politicians continue to stumble through a fog of confusion and doubt in regard to climate change. The case under the microscope typified irresponsible journalism. 

Media Watch host Paul Barry, with trademark irony, announced: ‘Yes it’s official at last … those stupid scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] got it wrong’, in their latest assessment report. He quoted 2GB breakfast jock Chris Smith from a week earlier saying the IPCC had ‘fessed up’ that its computers had drastically overestimated rising temperatures. ‘That’s a relief,’ said Barry, and how do we know this? ‘Because Chris Smith read it on the front page of last Monday’s Australian newspaper. When it comes to rubbishing the dangers of man-made global warming the shock jocks certainly know who they can trust.’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had been going through a very high pitch culture war on climate policy since 2006, positions had hardened even further and climate denial became “acceptable” (i.e. had lower social and political costs than had been assumed) again from about 2010 onwards. And various so cold shock jocks wallowed in it

What I think we can learn from this is that it is easy to create an echo-chamber of mutually reinforcing bullshit that gets published in newspapers then commentated on, then reported then there is reportage on the commentating of the reportage of the commentating. It is all cheap, it is easy, and it does not need to connect to anything actually scientific.

What happened next

After becoming Prime Minister later in 2013, Tony Abbott proved that he was not a fit leader for the Liberal Party let alone by country. He was turfed by his own party after only narrowly beating an empty chair in a January 2015 vote.

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 Norway

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Ten years ago, on this day, September 20, 2013, the Norwegian government pulled the plug on the Mongstad carbon capture and storage project.

Norway’s government on Friday terminated a full-scale project to capture carbon dioxide at the Mongstad refinery on the country’s western coast, citing high risks connected to the facility. It will be replaced with a carbon capture and storage (CCS) program that is designed to “realize” other full-scale CCS projects in the country.

 https://www.powermag.com/42579/

and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24233443

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly397ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the wheels were falling off the CCS bandwagon. The EU project NER300 was going nowhere. The British first competition head stopped. There were cost overruns at Southern Company. And the Norwegians just pull the plug.

What I think we can learn from this is that technosalvationism is really expensive and sometimes it gets so expensive that it can’t be sustained.

What happened next

 Everyone within a few years agreed to start talking about CCS as the next big thing and along has come hydrogen to assist in that. The game is the game is the game is the game 

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

August 27, 2013 – absurd claim of Nobel-prize winners’ support for Liberal non-policy is debunked.

Ten years ago, on this day, August 27, 2013, soon-to-be environment minister Greg Hunt was caught frolicking in fantasy land about the absurd “Direct Action” policy.

27 August 2013: Greg Hunt’s claims that Nobel laureates support direct action debunked by The Wire as they had not heard of ‘direct action’ or Greg Hunt and issue further followed up by Climate Spectator. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/news-story/b8184490c3ccc2a49c17cd9c23048357

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

The context was the Liberal Party in Australia had spent the previous 3 years boosting an anti-market pro-government intervention policy which was laughingly called “Direct Action.” Direct action had been analysed and shown to be bullshit. Business was pleading with Liberal leader Tony Abbott not to do it, but he couldn’t u-turn and we now ahead of the 2013 election had a situation where the Liberal environment spokesperson Greg Hunt was just making stuff up, knowing that there would not be consequences.

What I think we can learn from this is that, in the words of journalist Nick Tomalin, “they lie they lie they lie.” And they are allowed to lie by a supine amnesiac Media and here we are.

What happened next

The Abbott government brought in so-called Direct Action and it did not reduce emissions. Of course it did not – it was never designed to do 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.

Categories
Australia

August 25, 2013 – The IPA loses support, for being stupid climate deniers.

Ten years ago, on this day, August 25, 2013, the vicious stupid thugs at the Institute for Public Affairs lose some corporate funding (but of course can then turn that around to proclaim their fearless independence).

Some of the world’s largest companies have dropped financial support and membership for the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs amid concern at its vociferous campaign against action on climate change.

Petroleum giants ExxonMobil and Shell and large miners are among the multinationals that have confirmed leaving the Liberal-linked IPA, led by party member John Roskam, who this year was compared to Jesus Christ with his disciples by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Schneiders, B. and Millar, R. 2013. Climate hard line costs IPA support. Sydney Morning Herald, 25 August.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/climate-hard-line-costs-ipa-support-20130824-2sirk.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm423 , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that IPA had been a proud culture warrior in defeating Gillard’s carbon price and generally being asses. But this kind of “swinging for the fences” mentality comes with risks and costs, as we have seen already with the Global Climate Coalition and the Heartland Institute.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are are limits on what funders are willing to risk, and if you go too hard too far too fast some of your more mainstream groups which are also at the same time trying to spin a CSR (corporate social responsibility) line will clutch their pearls for fear of being exposed as hypocrites and being subject to consumer boycotts and so forth.

What’s interesting is sometimes the culture warriors just forget that there are limits and you saw this happened with Monkton with the swastika comment. They get trigger happy/high on their own supply and the Red Mist descends and they lose touch with what is going to fly and what isn’t.

What happened next

The IPA to my knowledge has continued to be asshat on climate change but I have not bothered to see whether they have dialled it down a notch, maybe someone can tell us.

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
Europe

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Ten years ago, on this day, August 9, 2013, BP explains to the EU Commission how it is going to be…

The EU abandoned or weakened key proposals for new environmental protections after receiving a letter from a top BP executive which warned of an exodus of the oil industry from Europe if the proposals went ahead.

“The missive to the EU’s energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, was dated 9 August 2013, partly hand-written, and signed by a senior BP representative whose name has been redacted.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/20/eu-dropped-climate-policies-after-bp-threat-oil-industry-exodus

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

BP executives were literally writing EU energy policy. The context was that by this time the EU’s CCS ambitions were in tatters but it still needed to talk a good game. The oil companies were not interested in anything ambitious, why would they be? And so you see this kind of naked power play.

What I think we can learn from this sometimes the mask slips/is wrenched off –  it’s on occasions like this. 

What happened next

Oh, you know, the 2015 Paris COP – everyone held hands, sang Kumbaya, announced Net Zero, 1.5 degrees all the rest of 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.