Tag: 2013

Categories
Australia

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

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.

Categories
Business Responses United States of America

April 10, 2013 –  US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

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…

Occasionally, things like “cap and trade” schemes (and I mean they are schemes) are defended by the trusty arm of BICEP… https://www.ceres.org/news-center/blog/changing-game-climate-advocacy-bicep-10-years-strong

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 Kingdom

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

 April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died.

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

  1. 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.
  2. Her chief scientific advisor John Ashworth tried to alert her and she responded with incredulity and “you want me to worry about the weather?”

See my letter in Financial Times.

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 happened next

Shocking vandalism of the statue of her. Repeatedly.

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

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

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.

Categories
Activism anti-reflexivity Australia Cultural responses Denial

February 22, 2013 – Idiotic “Damage” astroturf attempted by miners

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

Anon, 2013  Goldfields lobby group opposing ‘green extremists‘ ABC. 22 February.

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.

What happened next

The Libs won the 2013 State election. 

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.” 

https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/1fbe4e6dd9479fbb48257b8a00135769/$FILE/C39%20S1%2020130611%20p1133c-1142a.pdf

The cultures of extractivism? They continue.

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

Categories
Activism Energy

February 17, 2013 – celebrities arrested at Whitehouse, protesting Keystone XL

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.

http://www.mensjournal.com/travel/events/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-protests-in-the-u-s-20140919#ixzz3J9UWAobP  

And

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/17/keystone-xl-pipeline-protest-dc

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

Keystone was getting built.

What I think we can learn from this

It takes a hella lotta effort to even slow down the acceleration of the infrastructural madness.

What happened next

As per wikipedia– 

“In 2015 KXL was temporarily delayed by President Barack 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 permit that 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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

February 15, 2013 – the carbon bubble, will it burst?

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.

  1. 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”

References and See Also

IPIECA on the concepts…

https://seors.unfccc.int/applications/seors/attachments/get_attachment?code=6IPYS06R1TK33GFX33NA3I1IDOJ9OHB5

July 2022 “Unburnable Carbon Ten Years On.”

Unburnable Carbon: Ten Years On
Categories
Energy

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

Ten years ago, on this day, January 28, 2013, it all went wrong…

“Energy efficiency policy in the UK is at a watershed. On January 28th 2013, the Green Deal formally began operation. The Green Deal is a market-based, demandled financial mechanism providing up-front loans for energy efficiency measures, which are repaid using the energy savings. A new Energy Company Obligation will run alongside the Green Deal to support vulnerable customers, poorer communities and higher cost insulation measures. A commercial sector Green Deal is also planned”

Sounds great. Um…

“So what went wrong? The Green Deal was an example of a ‘Pay-as-you-save’ type scheme, where loans are taken out to pay for the energy efficiency measures, and repaid over time from the financial savings created by these measures. It seems like a no-cost solution and an obvious winner. But not the British government’s version of it.  One of the reasons for this failure was pointed out right at the start by critics, but ignored by government officials responsible for designing the scheme. This was that the 7-10% APR interest rate on the loan to householders was too high – in fact several percentage points higher than ordinary loans available on the high street. It was simply not affordable.

It also made many measures unaffordable within its own context – the ‘Golden Rule’. This rule was embedded into the legislation and stipulated that the savings generated by energy efficiency measures must lie within the cost of the measures. The Green Deal was initiated in 2013 under the 2011 Energy Act. It came with no target or grants. It combined accredited energy advice and installation with finance to be repaid in a period up to 25 years. Finance was attached to the property, and recouped through extra charges on the electricity bill (even if the savings were made on a different fuel, say gas).

The result? 300,259 total Green Deal assessments resulted in only 1,815 ‘live’ plans – a conversion rate of just 0.6%”

Thorpe, D. (2016) Why the UK Green Deal failed and why it needs a replacement. Energy Post, April 18. https://energypost.eu/uk-green-deal-failed-needs-replacement/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

.

The context was that there was a Coalition government in the UK, and the Liberal Democrats were trying to get the elephants that are Departments of State to tapdance.

What I think we can learn from this

This stuff is difficult. Wicked. Superwicked, superwicked on acid and steroids. And we’re all gonna die.  We are toast, but we are not going to be toasty, at least not in winter…

What happened next

Another, smaller, scheme went tits up in 2021.  And millions were screwed by energy price spikes in 2022, 23 , 24 and so on until the apocalypse…

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

References

Thorpe, D. (2016) Why the UK Green Deal failed and why it needs a replacement. Energy Post, April 18. https://energypost.eu/uk-green-deal-failed-needs-replacement/

Categories
Swtizerland

January 25, 2013 – Lord Stern admits #climate “worse than I thought”

Ten years ago, on this day, January 25, 2013, one of the white men who has been born with a “safe pair of hands” had the good grace to admit that he’d misunderestimated the speed and breadth of climate impacts. Nick Stern, former World Bank economist, had been tapped on the shoulder by then-Treasurer Gordon Brown in 2005, and had produced a report (“the Stern Review” on the Economics of Climate Change). Interviewed by two Guardian journos at Davos 6 years after its release, he said 

 “Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then.”  (Had I known this), “I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 395.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that the international climate negotiations were beginning to crank up for the next “big” meeting (Paris 2015) and folks at Davos (where the rulers of the world and their consiglieres, lackeys and hangers-on go to be seen) were making the right noises.

What I think we can learn from this

The people with the safe pairs of hands? Always ask yourself – safe for WHO? Safe for WHAT?

What happened next

Davos kept going (everyone should read Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain, imo. It’s set in Davos, but with a different cast of characters, different sensibility.). The Paris Agreement happened.  And everyone was saved.

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

References

Stewart, H. and Elliott, L. (2013) Nicholas Stern: ‘I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse’. The Guardian, 27 January.

Categories
Australia

January 8, 2013 –  Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

Ten years ago, on this day, January 8, 2013, soon-to-be-ex Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard pointed out the obvious…

“the Australian Bureau of Meteorology released an interim special climate statement on the extreme January heat Australia is currently experiencing. Record temperatures both day-time maximum and night-time minimums continue to be broken. The extraordinary heatwave has also been the scene for catastrophic fires, especially in Tasmania. The Prime Minister Julia Gillard saw the devastation in Dunalley and among her many interviews and press conferences made a brief statement connecting the intensity of bushfires with climate change.”

http://takvera.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/records-tumble-in-heatwave-as-julia.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that Gillard had been politically slaughtered by the “carbon tax” battle of 2011, thanks to the Murdoch press, the effectiveness of Tony ‘wrecking ball’ Abbott (soon to be exposed as a terrible Prime Minister) and the white-anting of the pro-Kevin Rudd forces in her own party.  

Gillard was far from perfect (as we shall see later in this series) but she definitely got a raw deal.  And her comments, and the connections she made, they should have helped wake more people up. But, well, here we are…

What I think we can learn from this

There comes a point where even if you’re right, thanks to what has gone before, you’re not gonna be listened to.  So your choices sort of become shut up and resign yourself to the fact that your experience/wisdom is going to be ignored and the same mistakes will be made, with nobody listening, or find a new audience/new ways of expressing, and perhaps a proxy with less baggage (this wasn’t an option for Gillard, obvs). 

What happened next

Gillard was toppled by the guy she had toppled (Kevin Rudd). Tony Abbott became the next Prime Minister and was clearly the worst Prime Minister ever. At least for a few years. There’s always a way to stop scraping the barrel, move it to one side and keep on digging….

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

See also

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jan/08/australia-bush-fires-heatwave-temperature-scale