By Greg Allen https://www.npr.org/2015/03/10/392142452/florida-gov-scott-denies-banning-phrase-climate-change
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that even if the Florida governor didn’t ban mention of carbon dioxide, climate change, it’s entirely plausible that he could have. And these sorts of cultural battles in the United States with Republicans wanting to wish things they don’t like away, well known. It’s really the hide and seek tactic of a child who doesn’t understand that they’re not the center of the universe. “If I close my eyes and can’t see you, that means that you can’t see me.” The world doesn’t work like that, and most people figure that out when they’re quite young. Others, not so much.
What I think we can learn from this. In the following 10 years Florida has had various hurricanes which don’t stick around in public memory the way that I think things used to (maybe I could be wrong), and large parts of it are going to be reclaimed by the ocean, as per the 1958 warning by Frank Capra. (LINK)
And the Trump administration is De Santis writ large, without any of Governor Scott’s equivocation…
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, January 22nd, 2015, a very good reporter broke an important (and largely ignored) story about industry associations.,
Fossil fuel companies have taken up majority positions in key renewables trade groups steering them towards a pro-gas stance that influenced Europe’s 2030 clean energy targets, industry insiders claim
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the EU policymaking process was grinding on. And the big fossil fuel companies were thinking about ways to make sure that EU policy got nudged in directions that would make them richer.
If renewable energy might cut your profit margins, there’s one obvious thing to do, which is to make sure that renewables advocates are not as powerful as they otherwise might be. And one fairly painless way of doing that, rather than picking a fight in public (which has costs both financial and reputational) is simply to make sure that the trade associations that might push renewables are, if not absolutely captured, then at least partially so, with at least one hand tied behind their back.
Basically,the fox wants to be inside the hen house.
What I think we can learn from this is that this tactic of capturing the opposition is quite normal. It happened in Australia (see Paddy Manning on what was happening in 2009)
Manning, P. (2009). The fox in the hot house. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 August.
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, January 17th, 2015,the brilliant cartoonist David Pope delivered another brilliant cartoon. You are now leaving the Holocene… Below please find an interview with him, conducted via email a couple of weeks ago.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
1. Who are you and how did you get into cartooning?
I drew cartoons for the peace movement and other activist causes when I was younger. Then I started drawing them for the Labour Studies Briefing in Adelaide, while I was a student there. Pre-internet, the Briefing used to produce short summaries of the latest articles and academic research on labour relations and the economy, for trade unions. The unions started to reproduce the cartoons in their own publications, and eventually I decided to devote more time to it.
2. When and how did you get switched on to environmental concerns?
Again, in Adelaide, I started drawing some cartoons for the national magazine of Friends of the Earth. I think I drew my first cartoon on “the greenhouse effect” in 1990, but in the 80s, the possibility of a nuclear winter was more pressing on my young consciousness, and connected to that, the campaign against uranium mining.
3. On the cartoon, do you remember any of the thought processes or the inspiration behind it? Were there any particular responses to it?
No, I have no memory of what prompted that cartoon at the time. Perhaps there was a climate report or interview that was trying to introduce the concept of the Anthropocene to a wider audience. It was reprinted in a few scientific papers and presentations, so I presume it did the job in conveying some sense of epochal transition.
4. Anything else you’d like to say – Chance to plug any books, exhibitions or anything else that you’ve got going on…
Many of those focus on the environments of the high country and the coast near where I live, and are a foil to the daily and more didactic political cartoons I draw for The Canberra Times and ACM. I don’t publish collections of my political cartoons, but some of them make it into Scribe’s excellent annuals, “Best Australian Political Cartoons”, available at most bookshops.
<END OF INTERVIEW>
See also this blog post on my personal website.
Cartoons, catastrophe and the “long” view (even a generation seems as much as we can cope with)
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.
10 years ago, on this day, January 4th, 2015, the Greens leader Christine Milne points out the obvious,
“Every year we are going to face these extreme weather events, which are going to cost lives and infrastructure, and enough is enough,” she said.
“The Abbott Government has to stop climate denial and help to get the country prepared to adapt to the more extreme conditions.”
Ms Milne said now was the time to talk about Australia’s preparedness for extreme weather events.
“Look at what is happening to people, communities, our environment, loss of infrastructure and for goodness sake abandon your nonsense about climate variability,” she said.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
Milne makes another plea for sanity and a warning about the consequences that lie ahead, as she had in June 2009.
But she is, of course, only a woman, and she is, once again, basically ignored. I should definitely read Cassandra by Crista Wolf. But to be fair, her gender is only part of the story. Because lots of men who are saying the same thing are also being ignored
The context was that the emissions trading scheme the Greens had worked with independents and the minority-ALP government to enact was toast. Tony Abbott was doing everything he could to slow down the growth of renewables. Desperate times.
What I think we can learn from this is that a good minority of political elites have known, perhaps a tiny minority of political elites have both known and been willing to speak out. What was always missing and is still really missing is engaged enraged, civil society. We have a few NGOs, but that doesn’t count as civil society.
What happened next
Milne stepped down as Green Party leader a few months later. The emissions, of course, they kept climbing, 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.
Eight years ago, on this day, September 16, 2015, a survey shows companies and trade associations are saying one thing and doing another … (shocked, shocked to find …)
BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and the Business Council of Australia are among the world’s largest companies and industry groups holding back action on climate change, according to a new survey.
The research, based on methodology developed by the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists and applied by UK-based non-profit group InfluenceMap, found 45 per cent of the 100 biggest industrial companies were “climate hypocrites” that obstruct action on global warming.
Some 95 per cent of the delaying firms were also members of trade associations that demonstrated “the same obstructionist behaviour”.
BHP Billiton was rated a “D”,
Hannam, P. (2015) Rio Tinto, Business Council of Australia among ‘climate hypocrites’, survey says. Sydney Morning Herald, September 16.
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 that the national and international climate wars were ongoing. The Paris meeting was coming up, and the Union of Concerned Scientists was trying to weaken the status of corporates and especially business associations lobbying against climate action. One way of doing this was by showing the functions of the business associations were not only to present a united front but also for these business associations to do things with dirty hands that individual companies would find too risky.
What I think we can learn from this is a better understanding of the relationship between business associations and their individual members, and how there is an interplay of blame-shifting and collective spreading of risk that trade associations can do. Sometimes pressure groups go too far and become more trouble than they’re worth.
What happened next
Last time I looked, BHP was still a member of these outfits. It finds them useful and not being a member would be tricky. I guess see also Alex Carey “Taking the Risk out of Democracy.”
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..
“In an article in The Australian on May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council, said that the United Nations is behind the global warming hoax. The real agenda of the UN “is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” Newman said. “This is not about facts or logic,” he added. “It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
These sorts of “secret UN plot” things have been around for yonks, partly because, well, yes, specific capitalist interests DID fund early work into conservation and environmental limits. That doesn’t mean it’s all made up. But that’s too much for Newman and Lyndon Larouche and that crowd to get their heads around.
What we can learn
You can be quite successful and powerful in this society and at the same time be dumb as a rock. All you need is the right skin colour, the right school, a penis and bish bosh, you’re in…
What happened next
Further embarrassments. And emissions. Which is embarrassing in itself, if you want the “sapiens” in homo sapiens to mean anything.
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
Eight years ago, on this day, February 14 , 2015, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband put aside their differences in order to focus on something they could all agree on: getting rid of unabated coal from our energy system. This level of agreement is almost unprecedented in the run-up to a general election and demonstrates the extent to which action to stop coal emissions has become a no-brainer. See more here.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Cameron, Miliband, and Clegg, all for various reasons, wanted to seem to be doing something on climate and coal was now largely friendless. It was being dug up in so few places that the employment implications were not there. So it was an easy win.
What I think we can learn from this
This sort of political bipartisanship, well tri-partisanship, will only happen if there’s a lot of public pressure, or an election coming, or if the issue can be circumscribed as “something must be done”, or a technology/sector is friendless enough to be beaten up.
What happened next
Cameron won the 2015 election outright and we started to see a rolling back of the weak climate actions that the Liberal Democrats had forced the Conservatives into – not that they’d ever been that hale and hearty to begin with
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Eight years ago, on this day, February 3, 2015, a workshop brought together industry types with government types to talk through how to accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions during the making of steel and glass etc.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The UK Government had started paying a little bit of attention to the need for not just power sector decarbonisation, but also decarbonisation of the industrial processes. In 2013 the Department for Energy and Climate Change and Business Innovation and Skills had launched a process of consultation for eight sectors.
This workshop was the culmination of those efforts.
Decarbonizing industrial processes is incredibly complicated, there are many moving parts. Energy efficiency and material substitution will take you so far but, beyond that we need some carbon capture and storage. Building that infrastructure without more customers, i.e. power sector and greenhouse gas removals, is “difficult.”
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
On this day, Jan 19, in 2015 “four of Europe’s biggest power utilities, represented in Brussels by Eurelectric, have decided to leave the European Commission’s CCS Technology Platform ZEP.“
The four were Germany’s RWE AG, France’s Electricite de France, Sweden’s Vattenfall AB and Spain’s Gas Natural Fenosa.
The ZEP had been set up in the mid-2000s as “a coalition of companies, scientists and environmental groups seeking ways to capture and bury heat-trapping carbon emissions mainly from the exhausts of coal, oil and gas-fired power plants.”
“Of the move, Bellona Europa Director Jonas Helseth said: – In their poorly concealed attempts to attain capacity payments, Europe’s utilities have misused the trust of the European Commission and Europe’s CCS community. It’s shameless how Eurelectric proudly announces the formation of a new CCS taskforce and ‘calls on policymakers to push ahead’, while simultaneously pulling out of Europe’s largest and widest coalition working on CCS.”
What happened next
Is there any CCS?
Why this matters.
We keep assuming we can deploy these technologies at massive scale, rapidly, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of the ways we avoid looking at how much some of us are emitting. There is trouble ahead.
