Tag: 2016

Categories
Australia

February 26, 2016 – Australian Defence White Paper useless on climate

Ten years ago, on this day, February 26, 2016,

Former Chief of the Australian Defence Force Chris Barrie recently argued that ‘Australia’s defence force is lagging significantly behind its US and UK counterparts in preparing to deal with the challenges created by a changing climate.’

Maclellan, N. 2016. Defence White Paper fails on climate change. Lowy Interpreter, 26 February.

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/02/26/Defence-White-Paper-fails-on-climate-change.aspx

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian Defence and intelligence forces had had some sort of an eye on climate change since at least 1981 when the Office of National Assessments had produced a report which you can now read because I paid for it to be scanned and declassified.

The specific context was that by 2016 climate change was horrendously politicised, an exhausting and exhausted topic of debate. It had been almost exactly 10 years, sort of September 2006, since the issue had (re)burst onto the public scene, and John Howard had been forced into a kind of U turn.  What followed this was the carbon pricing wars of 2007 to 2011 and whatever you said about climate change, someone was gonna leap on you. So the best thing, the safest thing to do was make various anodyne, vague statements and kick the issue into the next poor bugger’s in-tray. And so it came to pass,

What I think we can learn from this is as per the 2004 Pentagon study, just because it’s the military doesn’t mean it’s intelligent, and in fact, the very concept of military intelligence might sometimes be considered a misnomer. 

What happened next: The issue hasn’t gone away. It never will. Everyone who’s alive will have climate change as the background noise getting louder and louder for the rest of their lives, however long that might be. 

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: 

Feb 26, 1981 – Science writer warns readers about the greenhouse in the Guardian….

February 26, 1988 – Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman warns of “Dramatic Warming”

 Feb 26, 1998 – Australian “clean coal” is on the way (again).

February 26, 2014 – Advanced Propaganda for Morons

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

January 17, 2016 – CCS running out of steam?

Ten years ago, on this day, January 17th, 2016 the Financial Times reports on the aftermath of the Conservative government’s decision to pull funding (£1bn) for carbon capture and storage.

Scott, M. 2016. Carbon capture at risk of running out of steam. Financial Times, 17 January. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91726a24-a4be-11e5-a91e-162b86790c58.html#ixzz3xVjZrV00

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

 The broader context was that carbon capture and storage had first been mooted in the late 1970s (and was regarded sceptically).  It had had a brief moment in the late 1980s, and then disappeared into the undergrowth.

The specific context was that after a failed first CCS competition (2007-2011) another one had been set up. Companies were to compete for a billion quid. Then, abruptly, Chancellor George Osborne killed that. 

What I think we can learn from this is that technologies go through ups and downs.  CCS is a proper roller-coaster. You can read all about it here. (Hudson, 2024)

What happened next

The CCS band-wagon had its wheels put back on, a new axle etc, between 2016 and 2018.  Enormous amounts of money are being spent.  CO2 savings? Not so much…

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: 

January 17, 1970 – The Bulletin reprints crucial environment/climate article

January 17th – A religious perspective on climate action

January 17, 2001 – Enron engineers energy “blackouts” to gouge consumers

Categories
Activism

January 8, 2016 – Exxon versus a habitable planet (Exxon wins)

Ten years ago today – 

“A small coalition of prominent climate change activists and political operatives huddled on Jan. 8 [2016] for a closed-door meeting at the Rockefeller Family Fund in Manhattan. Their agenda: taking down oil giant ExxonMobil through a coordinated campaign of legal action, divestment efforts, and political pressure.” 

https://freebeacon.com/issues/memo-shows-secret-coordination-effort-exxonmobil-climate-activists-rockefeller-fund/ 

and

see also here

https://www.eenews.net/articles/private-eye-behind-exxonknew-hacking-scheme-faces-jail-time

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in the late 1970s Exxon’s scientists got their heads around carbon dioxide build-up (this was not top secret – see the CO2 Newsletter!). But the corporation pivoted in the mid-1980s to, well, funding denial because that’s the growth imperative, isn’t it?

The specific context was that even though the laws are made by the rich to constrain the poor, they offer some kind of venue, sometimes, to blunt/slow our acceleration off the cliff. Maybe. And here we are.

What I think we can learn from this is that we’re fubarred and Cocker Protocol is the only protocol.

What happened next

Well, a news outlet funded by the IPAA is gloating – 

A Decade of Defeat: The Rockefeller-Funded Climate Crusade on the Road to Nowhere

Ten years ago, a subpoena from then New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched the Rockefeller-funded legal crusade against America’s energy industry. This week marks a decade since the news broke about the case – but you won’t hear activists bragging about it this week.

That’s probably because their so-called “trial of the century” ended in spectacular defeat. What was supposed to be a game-changing lawsuit instead became the first in a long string of dismissed cases – in a campaign defined by courtroom flops, sketchy funding schemes, and millions in wasted taxpayer dollars.

Now, ten years later, the story is reaching a full circle moment. The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to review a case brought by Colorado municipalities that could determine the fate of this climate lawfare. A ruling could close the chapter on a ten-year campaign that has repeatedly failed from the start.

Ultimately, the campaign’s setbacks are primarily grounded in courts’ recognition of the weak legal theories and unfounded claims, but its lack of success also shines light on how politics and public priorities have shifted over the decade.

Also on this day: 

January 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

January 8, 2003 –  Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

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

January 8, 2018 – Joe Root doesn’t come back to bat

Categories
Australia Denial United States of America

December 12, 2016 – Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts shares his wisdom

Nine years ago, on this day, December 12th, 2016, the Guardian Australia reports –

 Australian senator Malcolm Roberts, of the far-right One Nation party, who is in the US, revealed he had given a speech at a CEI meeting with Ebell.

Roberts wrote the meeting was a gathering of the Cooler Heads Coalition and then listed some of the participants.

Screengrab of a post on Malcolm Robert’s Facebook page. Photograph: Facebook

They included Marc Morano, Randy Randol, Steve Milloy, Chris Horner, Craig Rucker, Patrick Michaels, Ken Haapala and James Taylor.

The views of most of the attendees are in direct contradiction to the overwhelming majority of scientific research published over decades, as well as the positions of the world’s major scientific academies.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/dec/15/one-nation-senator-joins-new-world-order-of-climate-change-denial

2016 Malcolm Roberts at CEI event http://reneweconomy.com.au/malcolm-roberts-joins-trumps-climate-deniers-fight-freedom-85911/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. 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 … I can’t even. What a species. Anti-reflexivity etc etc.

The specific context was – the moronic Tony Abbott had recently been toppled by Malcolm Turnbull, who said climate change was a thing.

What I think we can learn from this – nothing. Or rather, that there is no science so proven that there won’t be chuckleheads out there displaying their wilful ignorance.

What happened next

Ah, I will let Wikipedia deal with this

On 27 October 2017, the full High Court, as the Court of Disputed Returns, ruled that Roberts had been ineligible to be elected to the Parliament. Roberts and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson subsequently announced that Roberts would nominate as a candidate for the electoral district of Ipswich at the 2017 Queensland state election.[18] He was not elected.[19] In February 2018, it was announced that Roberts would lead the One Nation Senate ticket in Queensland at the 2019 Australian federal election. Pauline Hanson said: “Malcolm Roberts has got the reputation as a powerhouse, the empirical science man, and he’s really taken it up to members of parliament”.[20]

In September 2017, before the High Court ruling on Roberts’s eligibility, blogger Tony Magrathea initiated a High Court action alleging that Roberts had sat in the Senate while disqualified, contrary to the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975. On 24 June 2019, the High Court found the allegation proved and ordered Roberts to pay a penalty of $6,000 to Magrathea.[21]

Re-election

With his citizenship clear, Roberts was elected to the Senate again in 2019.

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: 

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

December 12, 1990 – Paul Keating refers greenhouse issue to Industry Commission

December 12, 2007 – Canada leaves Kyoto Protocol as Australia joins

December 12, 2007 – RIP William Kellogg

Categories
Australia Energy

October 5, 2016 – “Energy ministers urged…” again

On this day nine years ago…

Policy uncertainty could cause essential investments to be deferred or distorted at a huge cost to consumers, business groups warn.

Major business organisations and energy users have urged federal and state governments to work cooperatively to map out a “strategic response to Australia’s energy transition and challenges” ahead of a meeting of energy ministers scheduled for Friday – warning that investment is at risk.

Murphy, K. 2016. Energy ministers urged to map out strategic response to renewables. The Guardian, 5 October.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/06/energy-groups-and-businesses-plead-for-strategic-response-before-ministers-meet

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 well, look at the previous day’s post. There’s all sorts of promises about getting hold of energy production, consumption, efficiency. You feel so powerful when you convene meetings. And then… what happens?

The specific context was that the Turnbull government was trying to pretend it would do something about climate change, to placate “green” Liberal voters.

What I think we can learn from this – “co-ordination problems” exist. So does incumbent power.

What happened next – The energy ministers all took that onboard, and Australia is now leading the way on emissions reductions. Oh yes.

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: 

October 5, 1988 – Vice Presidential Debate and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’

October 5, 1989 – Enviro minister “Richo” warns Hawkie to save “Kakadu”

October 5, 1992 – Ignoreland hits the airwaves. #Neoliberalism

October 5, 2006 – Greenpeace sues Blair Government over shonky energy “consultation”

Categories
Australia Science Scientists

January 19, 2016 – Australian Chief Scientific Advisor advises…

Nine years ago, on this day, January 19th, 2016,

Taylor, L. 2016.Outgoing chief scientist Ian Chubb says tougher greenhouse gas targets inevitable. The Guardian, 19 January. 

Chubb also says hostility towards climate science may be easing but scientists still have a duty to offer unflinching advice

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 Australia had had chief scientific advisers since 1988 and they had all been saying, “you got to do more on climate,” Including, of course, the first female, and only female so far, Chief Scientific Adviser, Penny Sackett, who quit om 2011 once she realized that Julia Gillard was not going to try to do more than was legislatively on the table. 

What we learn is that scientists are definitely on tap, but they’re never on top, and that anyone who thinks they are is deluded. 

What happened next

Advice kept getting given. We’ve bucket loads of the stuff.

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: 

January 19, 1968 – Engineers are not ecologists…

January 19, 1976 – The carbon consequences of cement get an early discussion.

January 19, 1992 – they gambled, we lost

January 19, 2015 -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

Categories
Australia

January 2, 2016 – Australian environmental NGOs write another wish list…

Nine years ago, on this day, January 2nd, 2016, green groups seek planning permission for more castles in the air…

 A “new deal” blueprint for sweeping reform of Australia’s environment laws that puts climate change at the centre of ­future economic decision-­making is being prepared by a coalition of 40 leading conser­vation groups.

The reform agenda marks an aggressive new phase in environmental lobbying in the wake of the Paris climate meeting, at which Australia agreed to a new “high ambition” agenda to limit future warming to 1.5C.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/green-groups-push-for-environmental-law-reform/news-story/f01474a7609d8041f2f96ef46a2d3d29

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 403ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a perfectly reasonable (if totally inadequate) emissions trading scheme had been junked by Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2014.  But Australia was now led by a “green” Liberal, Malcolm Turnbull, and greenie groups felt that there might be some wiggle room. And presumably, needed to be seen to be busy, for reasons of self-respect, career and getting direct debits from guilty/frustrated middle-class people.

What I think we can learn from this

The environmental NGOs are always writing these wish lists, as challenges (1988’s “Green Gauntlet”, anyone) and the politicians are always either flat out ignoring them or else pretending to listen while doing virtually nothing.

What happened next

Turnbull got turfed by another Liberal (seriously, these were hilarious days). Eventually a Labor government won office and instantly did everything on this 2016 list. Oh yes.  (sarcasm).

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 2, 1955 – Commie newspaper covers climate

January 2, 2008 – tiresome (but sound) “Green Fatigue” warning is made

.Jan 2, 2014- “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop,

Categories
Activism United States of America

October 11, 2016 – Five activists do a shutdown on a tar sands pipeline

ctober 11, 2016 – Five activists do a shutdown on a tar sands pipeline

Eight years ago, on this day, October 11th, 2016,

http://www.shutitdown.today/action_video_recap

7 minute video

On October 11, 2016, five brave climate activists, determined to act commensurately with the truth of unfolding climate cataclysm, closed safety valves on the 5 pipelines carrying tar sands crude oil into the United States. This is their story.

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/10/11/avert-climate-catastrophe-activists-shut-down-5-pipelines-bringing-tar-sands-oil

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Canadian and US companies were extracting huge amounts of oil from tar sands; the filthiest kind of oil you can imagine. The getting of it is especially destructive. So what do we do? We try to take nonviolent direct action and throw ourselves on the mercy of the courts. But the beast, the machine, the Juggernaut continues and the emissions climb.

What do we learn that there’s a juggernaut, and it’s hungry.

What happened next? From Wikipedia

All five participants planned to use the necessity defence to draw attention to their cause and justify their actions,[6] though three were not permitted to do so.[7] The judge presiding over the Johnston & Klapstein trial, Robert Tiffany, initially ruled that they could mount the necessity defense.[8] However, he then reversed his decision, prohibiting expert testimony that would establish the argument for necessity,[9] before dismissing the case before the defendants could present its necessity defense.[10] Klapstein said she was happy the charges were dismissed, but “at the same time, we were indeed disappointed not to be able to present this to the jury. We were hoping to educate the jury and the classroom of greater public opinion on the dire issues of climate change”.[9] Foster, Higgins, and Ward were prohibited by the judges overseeing their cases from mounting the necessity defense.[11]

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

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

https://www.streetroots.org/news/2016/12/01/how-5-activists-stopped-flow-alberta-tar-sands-oil-us

Also on this day: 

October 11, 1990 – Australian Federal Government makes climate promise, with fingers crossed

October 11, 2006 – “Climate Institute” begins tour of rural Victoria

Categories
Australia

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake

Eight years ago, on this day, August 1st, 2016,

New minister Josh Frydenberg backs transition to renewables, despite campaign blaming them for price spikes

Slezak, M. 2016. How the campaign against South Australian wind farms backfired. Guardian Australia, 1 August.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that South Australia had been edging ahead in the amount of renewable energy in its electricity system because Premier Mike Rann had found a way whereby he made it extremely easy for already profitable (thanks to federal schemes) wind farms to get planning approval in the north of the state.

And this success was making the culture warriors agitated (though to be fair, Australian culture warriors are always finding something to be agitated about). But sometimes their agitation gets a bit much and they start scoring own goals; and so it came to pass.

What we learned is that culture warriors going to warrior.

What happened next is that the South Australian energy transition continued at pace. There was Elon Musk’s big battery and all the rest of it. It’s still unfolding, and you can read about it at places like reneweconomy.

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: 

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

Categories
Australia

May 4, 2016 – South Australian Premier preening at Emissions Reduction Summit

Eight years ago, on this day, May 4th, 2016 then premier of South Australia Jay Weatherill said the nice things.

source – https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/industry/modern-energy/hydrogen-in-south-australia/hydrogen-files/hydrogen-roadmap-11-sept-2017.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Jay Weatherill had been South Australian premier since October 2011, and had inherited a very clever policy set up from Mike Rann, where the South Australian government would look at the amount of new wind being installed, because there were federal incentives and set a target for years to come, which was completely in line with the current trajectory. They would win plaudits from desperate, environmentally-minded people who didn’t know the fine details, and then be able to take credit for stuff that was already happening. The name of the game is expectation management. So here was where we were able to say how wonderful South Australia was.

What we learn is there are games people play, and I don’t mean in the Eric Berne/transactional analysis sense.

What happened next? Well, South Australia had a blackout which set the culture war going. Weatherill, overall, played a blinder, and South Australia has continued to be a laboratory for more and more battery batteries, rooftop solar, you name it. 

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: 

May 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence

May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face…