Tag: 2017

Categories
United States of America

August 20, 2016 – Exxon’s gonna get sued?

Eight years ago, on this day, August 20th, 2017

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says in an interview with the New York Times that his office’s investigation into Exxon is focused less on what the company knew about climate change years ago, and more on whether the company in recent years failed to report the potential impact of climate change regulations on its future business. In other words, the AG’s office is conducting “a straightforward fraud investigation.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/science/exxon-mobil-fraud-inquiry-said-to-focus-more-on-future-than-past.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Americans love suing people. And there were various attempts to sue Exxon. These were initially based on how long they’ve known about climate change, but as the Attorney General makes clear, just getting them on today’s fraud is probably your best bet.

What we learn is that “this isn’t a Court of Justice son, this is a court of law”. The people who made the decisions to stop Exxon, working on low carbon, and the people who funded and led all the denial and delay and obfuscation do indeed deserve to be at The Hague and then sentenced to a low lying prison. But that’s not going to happen. Because the laws are not always written for the rich, they are always enforced for the rich.

What happened next, I think the court cases dragging on and on, of course.

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 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Categories
Coal United States of America

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Seven years ago, on this day, March 28th, 2017, the once and future President does another empty stunt.

28 March 2017 Trump signs exec order to ‘bring back coal’ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/trumps-order-on-energy-promises-coal-jobs-and-a-clean-environment-what-does-that-look-like

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

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.

The context was that Donald Trump had just enjoyed the biggliest inauguration crowd ever, and was doing the normal sorts of grift that conmen do, signing executive orders and bleating and ranting. 

 What we learn is that people want to believe them. By the time this post, which was drafted in December of 2023, is published, it will be clearer about whether Trump is indeed going to be the Republican nominee for president. It’s looking at the stage that he will be. But anything can happen.  (update – but hasn’t yet, Jan 27 2024).

What happened next, Trump did not bring back coal, because coal is in structural decline. And you can piss in the wind, and that seems to be enough for some people….

See also Obama’s vague shout out in 2008…

Also on this day: 

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

Categories
Australia Coal

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Seven years ago, on this day, February 20th, 2017, money earmarked for technology was revealed to have been spent on propaganda.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-20/coal-advertising-funded-by-money-meant-for-clean-coal-research/8287326

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian coal industry had created a levy on its members that was allegedly going to be spent on investigating low emissions technologies, it was called ACALET. But it turns out that CCS is mind bogglingly expensive. And given that the pressure for emissions reductions had gone away because Prime Minister Tony Abbott had abolished the Gillard Emissions Trading Scheme, they decided to syphon off money into PR efforts.

What we learn is that money collected to save the world can easily be repurposed to screw the world and sustain the rich and powerful. 

What happened next? It was a one-day scandal.  

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: 

 February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

Feb 20, 2006 – Clive Hamilton names a “Dirty Dozen”

Categories
Denial United States of America

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

Six years ago, on this day, March 28, 2017, PBSs report on the denialist Heartland Institute spamming science teachers with ludicrous “NIPPC” nonsense.

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

“Twenty-five thousand science teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast said in an interview last week. If so, the campaign would reach more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers.”

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 407.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the culture war never ends. The Heartland Institute had suffered reverses because of its attempt to smear environmentalists with the Unabomber; it was all considered a bit much (see May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face). And so low profile stuff, like sending science teachers loads of crap was more likely to keep them afloat and feeling important.

What I think we can learn from this

As per the blog post about the school student, and the textbooks, which we come to in April, controlling what children are able to learn about climate change the way it is framed is a major goal of denialists organisations. And unfortunately, they have been very successful in this. Here we are 35 years into public knowledge of a climate emergency and most people are not taught or are mis-taught this stuff as they grow up. And then that sets the anchoring for them (see the anchoring heuristic). 

What happened next

Heartland has kept going on this stuff I think and most textbooks are crap on this as per December 22 2022 report.

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

Jan 24, 2017 – Climate activist is court in the act

On January 24 2017, five years ago, a judge in the United States caused controversy when he decided to frame climate change as a matter of opinion, rather than settled scientific fact

A Washington state judge has sparked outrage for remarks questioning the existence of climate change and the role of humans in global warming. During the high-profile trial of Ken Ward, a climate activist facing 30 years in prison for shutting down an oil pipeline, Judge Michael E Rickert said: “I don’t know what everybody’s beliefs are on [climate change], but I know that there’s tremendous controversy over the fact whether it even exists. And even if people believe that it does or it doesn’t, the extent of what we’re doing to ourselves and our climate and our planet, there’s great controversy over that.” The Skagit County judge made the comments on 24 January while addressing Ward’s request to present a “necessity defense” in court, meaning he would argue that the grave threat of climate change justified civil disobedience. [link] 

We have to remember the very successful campaigns in the early 90s. To shift public opinion, especially among older white guys from climate science as a thing to climate science as part of a culture war. 

Why this matters: Yes, you can use the legal system as one means by which to try to ‘shift the dial.’ But it’s by no means the only one. Most of the people using the law know that, they don’t need telling from me.

Just days before this post went up, activists fighting the supine “regulator” of oil and gas extraction from the North Sea lost their case, because the judge said, well, read it and weep.

What happened next.

Bless him, Ken Ward fought it to the Washington State Supreme Court, and won on the necessity defence…