Pre-trial hearings were held in March 2016 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin. The U.S. Department of Justice argued that there was “no constitutional right to a pollution-free environment”, and that the court system was not the proper venue to affect such changes.[12] Coffin ruled in April (11th) 2016 recommending that both motions to dismiss were denied; Coffin found that while the case was “unprecedented”, it had sufficient merit to continue.[13]
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 activists have at various times, used laws to force corporations and governments to do things.
The specific context was that one of James Hansen’s granddaughters and a bunch of other people had launched a legal case Juliana versus the United States.
What I think we can learn from this is that there’s no constitutional right to clean air, it turns out, anyway.
What happened next: They lost and Trump has removed the endangerment clause, so the EPA is free to do what the EPA wants to do, largely, which is ignore climate change.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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 –
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
