Ten years ago, on this day, July 13, 2013, the Australian satirical website “The Shovel” took aim at Tony Abbott, who was about to become Prime Minister… It’s still hilarious, if with a tinge of horror.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Tony Abbott was clearly about to become prime minister. And he was clearly still spouting his bollocks, that because carbon dioxide was invisible, it therefore somehow didn’t have any significance. So the Australian satirical publication, The Shovel, decided to tear him a new one. And it’s a corker.
What I think we can learn from this
Laughter is solace
What happened next
Well, Peter Cook said, “I love satire, I love how it stopped Nazis.” Abbott became one of the worst Australian Prime Ministers to date (and there’s stiff competition). So, obviously, since then, we’ve had do-nothing Malcolm Turnbull, and fuck things up with a smirk on your face. Scott Morrison, him of the multiple portfolios. And now “Albo”…
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, July 11, 2013, a protest was held outside Google HQ because it hosted a fundraiser for denialist Senator James Inhofe.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Google, which still had a residual aura of “don’t be evil” about it, had been hosting fundraisers for climate denialists like James Inhofe. The context was that Obama wasn’t going to legislate on climate. Really, the international negotiations weren’t going anywhere in particular.
What I think we can learn from this is that any company that says “don’t be evil”, probably has some skeletons in its closet, or wants to have. Show me the money, I’ll show you the crime…
What happened next Google released the usual flimflam about “freedom of speech,” blah, blah, blah. Protesters could pat themselves on the head, go home, and the whole soap opera continues and the climate continues to be fucked.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The carbon tax battle had been lost. And now the anti-climate anti-Gillard sorts were doing their best to keep the flame alive with an anti wind power rally. But you can’t reheat a souffle. And this one was an embarrassment because people on the whole, like wind power, (especially if they don’t have to have their house immediately underneath a turbine).
What I think we can learn from this
Some technologies catch the public mind and are considered nice and good, and others are not. It’s not entirely fair. And neither is life.
What happened next
The anti-wind turbine people kind of more or less, folded up their tent and switched to other sorts of stuff, but then they could afford to do that because by September of 2013, their guy was in power and he hated the damn things. (See my 2017 paper ‘wind beneath their contempt’)
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..
Ten years ago, on this day, April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” was revealed to be nonsense.
18 April 2013:[ABC investigative television programme] Lateline follows up with CSIRO on soil carbon and proves again that Greg Hunt’s soil carbon plan would require up to “two thirds of the land mass of Australia.”
.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The Liberal and National Party opposition had been hammering the Gillard government on the so-called “carbon tax” and proposing a so-called “direct action” scheme, despite pleadings from business. “Direct Action” (nice name, shame about the science) was based on heroic (i.e. bullshit) assumptions about lots of things, including the ability of soil to absorb carbon…. So, Greg Hunt, Liberal opposition spokesman on climate (who had written an Honours thesis on carbon trading in 1990) was out there spouting all sorts of nonsense. And getting pushback, but so what, eh?
What I think we can learn from this
Facts don’t matter, when there is a vast propaganda machine defending anyone spewing useful non-facts.
What happened next
On 19 April 2013: Climate Spectator points out mysteries, questions and problems after Greg Hunt’s address to ANU. The [Labor] Government also releases a detailed line by line rebuttal of Greg Hunt’s speech.
The Liberal National coalition became the government. “Direct Action” was “tried” – and guess what, to precisely nobody’s surprise, emissions went up.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, April 10, 2013, US companies tried to make it look like they care.
“Thirty-three major U.S. companies, including eBay Inc., Nike and Limited Brands met in Washington DC on April 10th 2013 to unveil the Climate Declaration, urging federal policymakers to take action on climate change and asserting that a bold response to the climate challenge is one of the greatest American economic opportunities of the 21st century.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
On November 20 2008 something called “Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy” had been founded, created by one of these ‘responsible investment’ outfits (wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_for_Innovative_Climate_and_Energy_Policy).
What I think we can learn from this
Companies that sell directly to consumers always worry about their reputations, and “customer sentiment”. Being “out in front” of an issue, especially if the demand is “government do something” is a handy way of having a defense ready if the greenies turn their attention to you.
What happened next
The usual – new ‘ad hoc’ business groups form. Lots of excited, excitable and ahistoric hype gets bandied about. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat…
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, April 8, 2013, Margaret Thatcher died. There were, inevitably, a large number of misguided encomia about her “role” in climate advocacy. See for example this.
Well ,two things
Thatcher was clearly aware of climate change as a possible threat as early as June 1979, because she was trying to wedge environmentalists on the question of nuclear power.
Her chief scientific advisor John Ashworth tried to alert her and she responded with incredulity and “you want me to worry about the weather?”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Thatcher’s legacy was and is heavily fought over. In her memoirs she complained that the greenhouse issue had been captured by socialists. Which comes as a surprise to the actual socialists, but there you have it…
What I think we can learn from this
Two things. First, the dynamics of credit claiming (see Jan 1st 1988 post) with Big Brother’s benevolence being retconned
“She believed, for instance, having learnt it at school, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. (In his own schooldays, Winston remembered, in the late fifties, it was only the helicopter that the Party claimed to have invented; a dozen years later, when Julia was at school, it was already claiming the aeroplane; one generation more, and it would be claiming the steam engine.)”
Second – Those who know better having to keep schtum to maintain access and influence e.g. Tickell, John Ashworth.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, March 25, 2013, the Australian federal government killed off the Department of Climate Change, now that the “carbon tax” (actually a carbon price) was in situ, and the whole issue was unbelievably toxified.
Department of Climate Change is disbanded:
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is abolished. Most of its functions are moved to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, with responsibility for energy efficiency transferred to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The context was that the Gillard government had expended enormous amounts of capital and had sustained, enormous reputational damage to push through a carbon price mechanism. That one that, if Kevin Rudd hadn’t been useless, would have happened on his watch. The Gillard government was by this time, intensely allergic to climate issues, understandably so. Disbanding the department wasn’t going to send a signal to anyone about anything, though it probably was a bad move, because the expertise is then scattered. But then the people were probably already shattered. Morale is always an issue for civil servants trying to construct decent policy while an idiotic culture war happens around them.
What I think we can learn from this
As an historian or political historian, it’s always interesting to see when, why Departments of State are created combined or abolished and whether the commentary and expectations at the time turn out to be accurate. So the best example I can think of is that in 2016, the assumption that the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK was going to be absorbed into the business department. Environmentalists were understandably fearful that climate would be subsumed within energy, and would be off the agenda. And that wasn’t the case. That’s not to say that BEIS has played a blinder every single day.
What happened next
Gillard got toppled by Rudd, who then lost the election to Tony Abbott, who was a wrecking ball. The emissions trading scheme was abolished, the earth salted. 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.
Ten years ago, on this day, February 22, 2013, some miners went ape, setting up a ludicrous front organisation. Brain-damage indeed.
A Goldfields lobby group is planning to launch an eleventh hour campaign against what it calls “green extremists”.
The group DAMAGE, Dads And Mums Against Green Extremists, is planning advertisements in a Kalgoorlie newspaper in the last week of the state election campaign
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Western Australia is heavily dependent – in every sense – on mining. Anything that gets between the miners and their cash is regarded as something to be ignored, then smeared and repressed, by any means necessary.
What I think we can learn from this
Sometimes the goon squad tries to develop a sense of humour, as it did with this retronym. It’s usually not very funny though, more pitiable and embarrassing.
And smearing people who think a habitable planet in years to come is a nice idea as “extremists” is, well, an old ploy.
But, you know, sometimes it goes all step on a rake/Streisand effect.
But the Greens? The Greens were glad of the attempted “damage” to their brand. As one their MPs Robin Chapple said after the election
“I thank Tim Hall, the Greens candidate for the seat of Kalgoorlie. In Kalgoorlie, I also thank an organisation called Dads And Mums Against Green Extremists. DAMAGE was set up specifically to target the Greens, but in fact it helped to retain our vote by focusing on the Greens and identifying some of the issues it stands for. Many years ago former federal member of Parliament Michael Beahan told me that if your opposition is invisible, the worst thing you can do is identify them. Until the establishment of DAMAGE, the Greens to a large degree had been invisible in the Kalgoorlie media. But in the last two to three weeks of the election, the Greens were front and centre in the media and retained its vote. Michael Beahan’s point was that if somebody is not grabbing the attention, do not highlight them, but DAMAGE did exactly that.”
Ten years ago, on this day, February 17, 2013 , a protest march and arrests took place in Washington DC
Following Nebraska’s approval of the route for Phase IV of the Keystone XL Pipeline in January, about 50,000 people gathered at the Washington Monument and marched to the White House. Demonstrators demanded President Obama block the Keystone XL Pipeline and take action against climate change. Four-dozen protestors, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Darryl Hannah, James Hansen, Sierra Club Founder Adam Werbach, and environmental activist Bill McKibben, were arrested at the gates of the White House for civil disobedience.
“In 2015 KXL was temporarily delayed by PresidentBarack 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 to revoke the permitthat 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? Do comment on this post.
References and see also
Bradshaw, E.A. Blockadia Rising: Rowdy Greens, Direct Action and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Critical Criminology 23, 433–448 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9289-0
Ten years ago, on this day, February 15, 2013, a journo for the Melbourne Age writes a piece about the then-all-the-rage topic of “unburnable carbon”
Energy analysts and activists warn that most of the world’s fossil fuels must remain in the ground, and that it can’t be business as usual for the industry.
Green, M. 2013. Bursting the carbon bubble. The Age,15 February, p.16.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
This “unburnable carbon”/”carbon bubble rhetoric was all the rage 10 years ago. It looked like the UNFCCC process was going to be a slow route back to feeling that the system could deliver. Copenhagen had been a failure, Paris was two and a half years off and it was still not clear that it would provide anything. So all those people who need to believe that there are levers and buttons in the policy sphere that we can push turn their attention to the idea that investors rather than statesmen could solve the problems; they just needed to be given stark advice that investing in stranded assets was a bad idea.
How do you strand an asset? Well, ultimately, you need to have markets and regulations that make some investments,a bad idea and other investments a better one. How would you do that on carbon? Well, you would need a strong legally binding international agreement (which you can’t get), and therefore, we’re all toast.
.
What I think we can learn from this
Using one “part” of the financial system – whether it is the re-insurers, the insurers, the institutional investors as the leverage point, the secret push-this-button-to-change-the-system is a long-standing and soothing idea for a certain kind of climate-motivated person. Some of them are super-smart. This does not mean they are right.
Unburnable carbon as a meme allowed people to hold conferences, put out press releases, videos, get interviewed on Newsnight and podcasts and generally feel that things were still salvageable. Am I too cynical? My therapist says so.(1)
What happened next
You hear less about unburnable carbon these days, now that Paris and Net Zero are flooding the zone.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
As someone who read this before publication said – “I understand the dynamics of hoping there is a secret lever to pull, but in dismissing that at the same time as providing a psychological sort of explanation for why people keep coming back to this, you might be throwing the baby out with the bath water. There may not be a simple lever we can pull, but even if a mass movement formed which highly organized, highly effective and coordinated, competent, resourceful and dedicated, in the way you would like to see, it would still end up having to deal with the power of capital and would be highly involved in trying to pull these various “levers”
.
