Tag: 2013

Categories
On This Day

On this Day: January 7th – Intersectionality, geoengineering, warnings and activism.

Fifty six years ago the activists at “Ecology Action East” were drawing the links and parallels. These days it would be smothered in the language of “climate justice” etc. But back then, they had simpler terms.

  January 7, 1970 – “Ecology Action East” is “intersectional”

Twenty two years ago today, scientists think we might be able to use our technology to avoid the worst. What could go wrong?

January 7, 2004 – geoengineering our way outa trouble?

Twenty years ago today, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, with a basic website, warn of trouble ahead.

January 7, 2006 – Bureau of Meteorology with another climate warning

Thirteen years ago today, an activist takes a chance.  (See interview here.)

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results  

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
Australia

September 18, 2013 – Abbott’s wrecking ball starts swinging

Twelve years ago, on this day, September 18th, 2013,

2013 – Dismantling of four climate change programs begins and climate change functions moved into Department of Environment:

• The government begins drafting legislation to repeal the Clean Energy Act 2011

• The government abolishes the Climate Commission

• Treasurer orders the CEFC to cease investments

• Environment Minister announces plans to abolish the CCA

A new Department of the Environment deals with matters that include renewable energy target policy, regulation and co-ordination; greenhouse emissions and energy consumption reporting; climate change adaptation strategy and co-ordination; co-ordination of climate change science activities; renewable energy; greenhouse gas abatement programmes; and community and household climate action. See also – https://www.smh.com.au/national/you-bastards-sacked-me-when-the-climate-sceptics-arrived-20200626-p556nn.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 397ppm. 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 from 2006 to 2012 Australian political elites had engaged in a truly astonishing bloody soap opera over the extremely modest (and entirely inadequate) carbon pricing scheme (scheme in every sense).  Tony Abbott, who became Opposition Leader in late 2009 was a brutally effective wrecking ball, supported to the hilt by the Murdoch media. 

The specific context was that Abbot had handily won the 2013 election, and was now about to show that “good government starts today.”

What I think we can learn from this.  Abbott isn’t worth sending to the Hague. He’d simply plead stupidity and the prosecution would have to admit that it was an ironclad defence.

What happened next Abbott was a farcically incompetent Prime Minister, on Boris Johnson levels. Anyone who knew anything about humans could see it coming.  The Murdoch media goons did not.

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: 

September 18, 2004 – Australian States back ETS plan – All Our Yesterdays

September 18, 2013 – Greenpeace try to occupy the “Arctic Sunrise.”

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

Categories
Coal United States of America

June 27, 2013 – Judge versus climate

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 27th, 2013,  

U.S. District Court judge ruled against the expansion of Arch Coal’s West Elk mine in Colorado for failure of federal regulators to consider the social cost of carbon [3] in their environmental review.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/30/3454764/court-blocks-arch-mine-coal-expansion/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that one of the favoured tools for liberal opponents of climate change is the court system.  And sometimes there are, it seems, some “victories”.  Often reversed, but well, what are you gonna do? 

What I think we can learn from this.  “They make the laws to chain us well”…

What happened next. The courts get stacked with dickhead judges, cases get dismissed and the emissions climb….

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 27, 2000 – crazy but well-connected #climate denialists schmooze politicians – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

January 21, 2013 –  5 Ways President Obama Could Fight Climate Change Now

12 years ago, on this day, January 21st 2013, another helpful listicle is published, in the Huffington Post (natch).

 5 Ways President Obama Could Fight Climate Change Now

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Obama had already done everything he was going to do on climate change (i.e. nowt). He had been unwilling to spend political capital in 2009-10 to overcome Republican opposition, since getting some healthcare through was his main game.  But it was the beginning of his second term, and small l-liberals needed to keep projecting Hope onto him, and churning out listicles like this.

What I think we can learn from this

Ooof. We believe, or pretend to believe, what we want about Saviour Politicians.

What happened next

The emissions kept climbing. What else is there to say, really?

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.

January 21, 1960 – at least 435 coal miners killed in apartheid South Africa incident #BusinessAsUsual   #Racism   #Profiteering   #GlobalApartheid

January 21, 1968 – Ultima Fule on Ultima Thule

January 21, 2010 – The flub that sank a thousand policies #auspol

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.