Categories
Australia

March 20, 2014 – Australian Senate votes against killing off ARENA, CEFC etc 

Eleven years ago, on this day, March 20th, 2014,  Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s first attempt at legislative climate thuggery is foiled.

The government’s carbon tax repeal laws have been voted down by the Senate, leaving the fate of Australia’s carbon pricing scheme up to the new Senate that sits from July.

It appears very likely the carbon price will then be repealed – and the government says its repeal laws will make the end date of the tax retrospective to 1 July, 2014 – even if they have not passed the parliament by then.

Carbon tax repeal voted down by Senate | Australia news | The Guardian

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the previous five years had seen ferocious battles over a fairly basic and inadequate carbon pricing scheme. 

In late 2009 the Liberal Party had tossed Malcolm Turnbull for being too pro-climate action and given Tony Abbott, the leader of the opposition gig. Abbott had then killed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Rudd basically imploded. Rudd’s henchman then gave a journalist a jibe about Julia Gillard that caused Gillard to uncharacteristically lose her cool. Gillard challenged for the leadership and Rudd was turfed by Labor. Gillard became prime minister, and during the snap election campaign that she just called, there would be no carbon tax under her government. The 2010 election resulted in a situation with neither the Coalition or Labor having enough MPs to form a government, and therefore relied on Gillard or Abbott doing enough deals with the independents and the Greens. Gillard succeeded, but the cost of their support was – you guessed it – a carbon pricing scheme. The optics were bad, and they were handled even worse (see February 24 2011 blogpost). 

And so 2011 saw this astonishing, vitriolic, insane battle over a “carbon tax”, with most businesses ducking and covering and not wanting to be drawn into the fight. and even the consultancies, or maybe especially the consultancies, given that they are entirely dependent on the good graces of political parties were cutting their cloth accordingly (See Malto Maltenberger anecdote- the intellectual corruption and quiescence is astonishing.)

Anyway, Gillard, thanks to in part, the ferocious attacks of the Murdoch press, became very unpopular in the opinion polls. Kevin Rudd, who’d been lurking on the back benches, launched his challenge, toppled Gillard. 

There was an election in 2013 which the wrecking ball, aka Tony Abbott, won handily, and Abbott had set about trying to repeal all the carbon pricing legislation and also to abolish things like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, but Abbott did not have control of the Senate, and this is an example of them pushing back. 

What I think we can learn from this is that this period in Australian politics was an especially bewildering soap opera. Actually, not even a soap opera, more like a Jacobean tragedy. 

What happened next, CEFC and ARENA survived, sort of. Abbott was turfed by Turnbull, who was then turfed by Morrison. A lot of this has to do with energy and also the culture wars going on. “Which kind of Australia do we want?” And it seems that enough people want an imagined 1950s Australia that never existed.

And these people can be mobilized. And the so-called progressive forces, which are mostly or at least partially blind to the arrived ecological debacle, have neither the language nor the skills to do much about it.

It may or may not be different when the Rupert bloody Murdoch finally dies. But just because the poisoner is dead doesn’t mean the poison stops working. 

I suppose this is a contestable way of looking at it. You also have to look at the poison needing to be frequently updated, or else the so-called immune system of the so-called body politic might “cleanse itself” of insanity? Who knows? We’ll find out. 

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 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

Categories
International processes United States of America

February 16, 2014 – US climate envoy John Kerry denounces “shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues”

Eleven years ago, on this day, February 16th, 2014 climate envoy John Kerry says “look over there”:

Climate change may be the world’s “most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction and urgent action is needed to combat it, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday, comparing those who deny its existence or question its causes to people who insist the Earth is flat.

In a speech to Indonesian students, civic leaders and government officials in Jakarta, Kerry laid into climate change deniers, accusing them of using shoddy science and scientists to delay measures needed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at the risk of imperiling the planet. He also went after those who continue to dispute who is responsible for such emissions, arguing that everyone and every country must take responsibility and act immediately.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/john-kerry-blasts-climate-change-deniers-shoddy-scientists-1.2539163

[And the link here It has been 404ed… http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm ]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was “eyes on Paris” for what was going to be the latest “last chance to save the Earth”, but there were still people chuntering about climate change not being a problem, and Kerry was getting stuck into them.  Partly to avoid the weakness of the proposals being put forward, by him and his ilk, I guess.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are always people chuntering about it not being a problem. And one of them is now President of the United States, and the bots are all spouting the bullshit about false predictions and everything’s fine and so forth. nd people want to believe it, and so they do. 

What happened next

The denialists didn’t go away. And you neither did the lukewarmers. 

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
Cultural responses United States of America

November 30, 2014 – US TV show The Newsroom tackles climate change

Ten years ago, on this day, November 30th, 2014,Aaron Sorkin’s drama show The Newsroom “does” climate change.

“The person has already been born who will die due to catastrophic failure of the planet.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Sorkin has tried to get people thinking about climate change before. Check out “The American President” from 1995.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_President

What I think we can learn from this

We ignored all the warnings, because to not do so would require collective action, and we really suck at that.

What happened next

Which then got chided by various “lefties” for, oh the usual – insufficiently hopey-changey blah blah blah

https://grist.org/living/aaron-sorkin-tackles-climate-change-on-the-newsroom-and-oy/  

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/climate-desk-fact-checks-aaron-sorkins-climate-science-newsroom/

The emissions kept climbing and the predictions came closer. Some of them have arrived. Others, well, they’re pending. 

References/further reading

Black, M. (2017). Environmental Deadpan: New Scales and Sensations of Ecological Fallout. American Quarterly 69(2), 397-409. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aq.2017.0033.

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: 

November 30, 1978 – House of Lords debate on Atmospheric Changes…

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Categories
Energy United Kingdom

November 5, 2014 – Vince Cable and the Energy Trilemma

Ten years ago, on this day, November 5th, 2014, Vince Cable splashes the cash on the Energy Trilemma

A £14 million fund to help businesses develop new products and technologies to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy security and reduce costs was announced by Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Vince Cable.

The fund will encourage companies to invest in technologies which help to meet our future energy needs in a more environmentally friendly way, while at the same time boosting economic growth.

In a separate competition, Innovate UK are also making £5 million available to increase research and development and fund feasibility studies to reduce the environmental impact of extracting and using fossil fuels. It will help develop innovative technologies to take advantage of the changing energy landscape and make £1 million specifically available for feasibility studies led by small businesses.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said;

We are facing a trilemma. As well as reducing emissions and improving energy security, we need to reduce costs for energy users. Governments have their role to play, but we also need there to be investment by businesses in innovation to develop new products and technologies.

We are making £14 million available to encourage that investment and make sure that British companies have help to tackle this challenge.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberal Democrats had chosen to go into a coalition government with fucking Tories. Because Nick Clegg was a Tory on everything but Europe. And they quite liked the idea of limousines and red ministerial boxes. And here’s Vince Cable banging on about the energy trilemma. The context being that David Cameron had already decided to “cut all the green crap.” And there were the typical Treasury tussles over funding on anything that couldn’t pay for itself within five minutes. 

What we learn is that smart people are understandably seduced by power because they want to make their mark, get something done, change the system from within, etc. 

What happened next? The Tories since 2015 have been governing in their own right, thanks to the infinite wisdom of the British electorate, and everything has turned to shit. Literally, in the case of rivers, the state is being looted, and the earth is being assaulted. And the young can be grateful that catastrophic climate change is going to mean that they don’t have to spend 70-80 years enduring this. 

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: 

November 5, 1969 – House of Lords question about the greenhouse effect

November 5, 1992 – Jeremy Leggett calls Australian petrol price cuts “insane”

November 5, 1997 – Global Climate Coalition co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference

Categories
Canada Carbon Capture and Storage

September 30, 2014 – a big CCS demonstration project opens.

Ten years ago, on this day, September 30th,2014 

Boundary Dam ccs goes online (ribbon cutting on 2nd October – source The Guardian)

And it hasn’t gone quite to plan or promise (aka hype)… Of course.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that despite FutureGen having failed, people were still banging on about CCS as The Way Forward. And were willing to put vast sums of taxpayers’ money where their mouths were…

What we learn is that not all pilot projects work. CCS advocates are remarkably schtum about Petra Nova, Boundary Dam and Gorgon. Instead they bleat on about Sleipner Field…

What happened next? Boundary Dam really hasn’t worked.

See for example 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

September 30, 1969 -US activist publication mentions climate change

September 30, 2009 – Tony Abbott says #climate science is “absolute crap”

Categories
United Nations United States of America

September 23, 2014 – Obama gives a wonderful speech about climate change. We are saved.

Ten years ago, on this day, September 23rd, 2014,

While US President Barack Obama told the UN Climate Summit [23 Sept 2014] that climate change will “define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other”, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop (replacing Tony Abbott, who did not attend) surmised the Australian position to “striking the responsible balance of safeguarding economic growth while taking action on climate change.”

Limbrick, 2014

And this was the event where Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, channelling his inner John Howard, did not attend, even though in New York the following day –

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Obama could afford to give all the soaring speeches because he wasn’t going to be up for re-election. And it’s his strong suit, isn’t it – soaring speeches. Legislating, not quite so much. Paris was coming. And soaring speeches make your followers feel good, don’t they? So everyone’s happy. 

What we learn is that we are easily seduced by wonderful rhetoric from people who we can praise and then pat ourselves on the back for not being racist. Pro tip, not being racist is a little bit more complicated than very occasionally voting for a black person. 

What happened next? Obama made all the money. Paris happened, the emissions kept climbing. 

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

 September 23, 1986 -Joe Biden suggests urgent #climate action…

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

Categories
Uncategorized

September 22, 2014 – “We Mean Business” coalition formed

Ten years ago, on this day, September 22nd, 2014, ten long years ago, as the pressure for Paris builds, the “We Mean Business Coalition” is launched

Can you believe this stuff? Plenty of people can, because they need to…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Paris COP – the one that everyone was building as “putting it all back together, (again)” was coming up. And therefore, you get all sorts of business groups trying to gee themselves up and provide cover for the danger of potential regulation. So alongside “We Mean Business”, you’ve got the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, for example. 

What we learn is that when there’s a “big event” coming up, you get all sorts of proactive or should I say pre-emptive efforts by business to create bodies that sound cool, and will be quote-worthy, so that journalists who are having to report on potentially-dangerous-to-their-career-stuff have some both-sides-isms quotes tht they can chuck in, for “balance”. You want a for instance? Well like the inability of capitalism to cope with the shit that it is causing. The journos can get a React Quote from some nice-sounding business lobby, rather than just have to state the bare facts that we are doomed and the people doing the dooming don’t give a shit. 

It’s also useful for junior policy wonks and rightwing politicians – they can point to these outfits and say soothingly (if only to themselves!) “the system responds.”

What happened next? We Mean Businesses is still going. I think it’s sponsoring various news services to build a cuddly name for itself (quite a clever thing to do, btw).

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.

References

See also Climate Group, BICEP, OGCI etc.

Also on this day: 

 September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

Categories
Activism Australia

July 31, 2014 Ark hits rocks with forestry tie-in

Ten years ago, on this day, July 31st, 2014, an Australian eco-group got its reputation burned.

2014 Planet Ark on the receiving end of criticism about its tie-in with forestry outfit –

The founders of environment group Planet Ark are speaking out about the charity they say has lost its way.

Environmentalist Jon Dee and tennis great Pat Cash founded Planet Ark 20 years ago.

It soon forged a high profile, thanks in part to the backing of celebrities like Olivia Newton John, Kylie Minogue and Pierce Brosnan.

But times have been tough for Planet Ark lately.

It has made substantial losses for three years running, sold some major assets and offered redundancies to staff.

After National Tree Day at the weekend, Mr Dee and Mr Cash have told 7.30 they are particularly upset about Planet Ark’s links with the timber industry.

Planet Ark has allowed its logo to be used on advertisements for timber, paid for by Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA).

It is part of a sponsorship deal in which Planet Ark gets $700,000 from the timber industry [continues]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-31/planet-ark-founders-cut-ties-with-lost-organisation/4167146

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian outfit Planet Ark had been going since 1992 (and set up its website in 1996). And they, like any NGO, needed money, and the people with the money said they didn’t want anything in return, but there’s always strings attached. 

What we learn. It suits the needs of organisations with environmental reputations that need a bit of polishing to partner with outfits that have some sort of credibility And so it comes to pass. This tension plays out again and again. Because it’s a market for reputation. There are buyers and sellers. 

What happened next? Planet Ark is still around.

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 31, 1981 – US politicians hold “carbon dioxide and climate” hearings.

July 31, 2008 – another day, another “Strategic Review”

Categories
Australia

July 17, 2014 – Australian elected idiot is highly visibly idiotic

Ten years ago, on this day, July 17th, 2014, a not so cunning stunt in Parliament… with someone cosplaying a Worker to support the substance that will (checks notes) kill all the workers, the non-workers and pretty much everything else except some sulphur-based life-forms in deep oceanic vents.

“Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald wearing the vest to show his support for the repeal of the mining tax, which passed the Senate with amendments and is returning to the House of Representatives for another vote. The vest, emblazoned with “australiansforcoal.com.au” and Macdonald’s name, was kindly provided to Macdonald by the Minerals Council of Australia” (Mackinnon, 2014)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the opponents of climate action were feeling particularly pleased with themselves. They had managed to destroy the carbon pricing mechanism that Julia Gillard’s government had instituted. And here we have a parliamentarian cosplaying, being working class, wearing the high-vis jacket in Parliament. 

What we learn is that the high-vis jacket is a potent, easy symbol of manual labour masculinity. And therefore the “authenticity” that comes from that. And people like to cosplay that. It makes them feel good. It enables them to enlist “salt of the earth” memes, and by extension accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being in an effete latte sipping liberal. 

What happened next? The guy was censured for bringing props into parliament. That didn’t seem to stop Scotty from marketing. Three years later, with this lump of stupidity, that was what he carried between his ears. There was also a lump of coal in his hand that had been provided to him by the Minerals Council of Australia. They had lacquered it so it didn’t smudge.

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.

References

AAP. 2014. Senator asked to tone down high-vis effort. The Australian, July 17. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/senator-asked-to-tone-down-high-vis-effort/news-story/50968f280a9cd602a3e39813afbf069b

MacKinnon, A. 2014. This Idiot Senator Wore A Hi-Vis Mining Vest In Parliament And Got Torn To Bits By Everybody. Junkee.com, July 18

https://junkee.com/this-idiot-senator-wore-a-hi-vis-mining-vest-in-parliament-and-got-torn-to-bits-by-everybody/38235

Also on this day: 

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic”

Categories
Business Responses United Kingdom

April 24, 2004 – Launch of the Climate Group

Twenty-years ago, on this day, April 24th, 2004, the business outfit the “Climate Group” was launched, with a speech by Tony Blair.

24 April 2004 Launch of the Climate Group. Blair speaks at it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3662303.stm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process was potentially coming back on board with Kyoto moving towards ratification. Businesses were worrying. The Global Climate Coalition was dead. There was a space for new business activity. And along comes the Climate Group launched today but probably conceived a couple of years before. 

What we learn is that the early 2000s mark a kind of shift, there is that split in business between what the headbangers have wanted and succeeded in destroying, i.e. destroying high ambition. And then there’s all the other companies, which might make money from the green transition, or can just read a bloody Keeling curve, and see that there’s trouble ahead. 

What happened next, the Climate Group had its peak years probably in the run up to Copenhagen. It’s still going. I’m not quite sure why. There is now a coalition called “we mean business” as well. But there’s always a proliferation of these groups, I guess, representing slightly different interests and making work for well-meaning but fundamentally dim technocrats.

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 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?