Tag: ABC

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

November 13, 2000- Kyoto “would hardly make any difference.“

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 13th, 2000,

According to Graeme Pearman, Australia’s senior climate scientist and head of its greenhouse research effort, not much. On ABC `7.30 Report’ last night (13th) he concluded –

Dr Graeme Pearman: “The reality of the protocol as it is at the moment, is even if all of the nations were able to achieve those targets, it would hardly make any difference.”  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 that the UN negotiating process around climate was, as had been predicted, a total clusterfuck. Targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries had been kept out of the initial treaty by the US threatening to boycott the Earth Summit.

Graeme Pearman, by this stage, had been studying C02 build-up for almost 30 years, and had advised Keating’s cabinet (in 1994).  

The specific context was Australia had extorted an astonishingly generous deal, and had signed, but was still not moving to ratify, and it was pretty obvious (see leak from September 1998) that it would only do so if the US ratified.

What I think we can learn from this – international climate “policy” is basically make-believe, kayfabe.

What happened next – Australia finally ratified Kyoto, under Kevin Rudd, who then refused to set ambitious targets for further action.

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 13, 1963 – Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

November 13, 1995 – no Aussie savings of greenhouse gases so far – All Our Yesterdays

November 13, 2008 – Coal industry tries to get some ‘love’

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

July 11, 1972 – Gay rights vs ABC

Fifty-three years ago, on this day, July 11th, 1972,

At one peaceful protest, outside the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) headquarters on 11 July 1972, against the refusal by ABC management to show a segment on Gay Liberation (that featured Dennis Altman) on This Day Tonight, McDiarmid was arrested, the first such arrest at a gay rights protest in Australia.[6]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. 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 that the Black Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s onwards had acted as an “initiator” movement with spin-offs for second wave feminism, Puerto Rican rights, “ecology” and … gay rights.

Also, homosexuality was still criminalised, with all the attendant fear, opportunities for police brutality, extortion, shakedowns, blackmail etc.

The specific context was that brave men and women decided they weren’t going to live like that any more, under those conditions.

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like the ABC are not the friend of progressive organisations and ideas. They have to be pushed (hard) even to be relatively “neutral”. That’s not to say there aren’t brave and principled journos working within them, producing solid work.

What happened next – South Australia led the way in decriminalisation (it took the death of a nice middle-class man at the hands of the police – RIP George Duncan). Other states followed.

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 11, 1968 – The UN Secretary-General, U Thant, delivers report on Human Environment that mentions carbon dioxide and climate change

July 11, 1989 – Australia says “sure, we’ll take #climate refugees.” Yeah, nah.

July 11, 1994 – Australian Environment Minister admits not clear if Australia hitting targets (spoilers, it wasn’t) 

July 11, 1996 – Celebrity Death Match: Australian fossil fuels industry versus The World (Spoiler: world lost)

July 11, 2013- “don’t be evil” my fat arse….

Categories
Australia

February 26, 2007 – ABC’s Four Corners tackles climate (again)

Eighteen years ago, on this day, February 26th, 2007,

Four Corners documentary – Read extended interviews, key reports and international commentary on the global warming debate.

Date: 26/02/2007

CLIMATE CHANGE REPORTS

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/129911/20141213-0133/www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1857355.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in sort of September, 2006 the climate issue had burst back on to the Australian political agenda thanks to the Millennium drought, Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, the Stern Review, etc, There had been a massive “walk against warming”, and the question over as well, what was going to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and would Australia be in it?

 By now Kevin Rudd had seized control of the Australian Labor Party from Kim Beasley, and was using climate as one of the sticks to beat John Howard with. So climate was extremely salient, and of course Four Corners, which is the ABCs flagship current affairs program had already tackled climate repeatedly in the 90s. In early 2006 it had broken the story about the “greenhouse mafia.” 

What I think we can learn from this is that when you’re on the upswing of an issue attention cycle iI feeds on itself. It’s easy to write more stories. The public’s appetite for more stories has not been sated

What happened next is that climate stayed high on the political agenda for a surprisingly long time. This was because no solution was successfully implemented. Then the minority government of Julia Gillard, between 2010 and 2013 needed to push through carbon pricing legislation (this was exceptionally bloody). 

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: 

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
Australia

February 13, 2006 – Four Corners reveals the “Greenhouse Mafia”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, February 13th, 2006. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners documentary on “Greenhouse mafia”

You can see a bit of it here

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a lobbyist, Guy Pearse had written a really interesting PhD thesis. The Millennium drought seemed never-ending, as did Australian Prime Minister John Howard‘s opposition to any climate action  unless it was loose and clearly, phoney talk of nuclear as a solution. And so Four Corners, which is a bit like Horizon, was looking to return to an issue that they had  covered extensively in the 1990s. 

And it latched on to recently published research by Guy Pearse. The program was a crucial weakening of Howard’s legitimacy/hegemony which would be dealt killer blows through the rest of 2006.

 What we learn is that academic research can sometimes – if the stars align – make a difference, at least in the agenda-setting phase, possibly, in the implementation phase, who knows? 

 What happened next

A very good book – “High and Dry” came out the following year, based on (but also extending) Pearse’s PhD.  Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister. And you know the rest…

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 13, 2007- Industry is defo allowed to silence scientists…

Feb 13, 2015 – We refuse to divest ourselves of illusions

Categories
Australia Denial

December 15, 2009 – Monbiot versus Plimer on Lateline

Fourteen years ago, on this day, December 15, 2009, UK commentator George Monbiot took on and demolished Australian geologist Ian Plimer.

2009 Monbiot versus Pilmer on Lateline http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs

http://www.monbiot.com/2009/12/17/showdown-with-plimer/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was talking climate because of the recently concluded Copenhagen conference and the general upsurge in concern over the previous three years. Plimer had written a book called “Heaven and Earth” which has become a major denialist tract. Monbiot was always up for a ruck. Monbiot had already put paid to David Bellamy’s appearances by pointing out that Bellamy had completely misunderstood an aspect of glacier retreat.

What I think we can learn from this

That is rare for a single intellectual crushing and humiliation to particularly matter, but cumulatively they can, I guess.

What happened next

Plimer kept plimering. Monbiot kept publishing. Kevin Rudd did not announce the double dissolution election in response to the blockage of his wretched legislation. The Australia climate wars just got worse. And 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..

Categories
Australia

October 25, 1980 – Australian radio’s The Science Show talks about climate change…

Forty-three years ago, on this day, October 25, 1980, episode 234 of the Science Show had the following – Letter re Science Show; Flight from Maths; Hepatitis B Vaccine Success; Carbon Dioxide and Climate; Kakadu National Park; Northern Territory Wildlife.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were more and more people writing about potential climate change. The Australian Academy of Science had just had its first big conference. And so getting a brief item about (I think this one was about starting to make measurements at Cape Grim)something else was not a big surprise. And, as I’ve said before the very first Science Show, in the middle of 1975, had talked climate with Lord Ritchie Calder. 

What I think we can learn from this

Again, that subset of Australian politicians who listen to the Science Show, which is probably a much smaller proportion than the national average, would have known about the problem Long, Long ago.

What happened next

We kept talking about it. Everyone has kept talking about it. In the late 1980s the denial campaigns kicked into gear, once it was clear action was needed, and that oil, coal and gas were in the cross-hairs.

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
Australia Denial

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

Ten years ago, on this day, September 23, 2013, the Australian state broadcaster explained – for the umpteenth time – the dreadful lies the radio shock jocks were peddling.

On 23 September 2013 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program Media Watch explored a textbook example of why too many Australians and their politicians continue to stumble through a fog of confusion and doubt in regard to climate change. The case under the microscope typified irresponsible journalism. 

Media Watch host Paul Barry, with trademark irony, announced: ‘Yes it’s official at last … those stupid scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] got it wrong’, in their latest assessment report. He quoted 2GB breakfast jock Chris Smith from a week earlier saying the IPCC had ‘fessed up’ that its computers had drastically overestimated rising temperatures. ‘That’s a relief,’ said Barry, and how do we know this? ‘Because Chris Smith read it on the front page of last Monday’s Australian newspaper. When it comes to rubbishing the dangers of man-made global warming the shock jocks certainly know who they can trust.’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had been going through a very high pitch culture war on climate policy since 2006, positions had hardened even further and climate denial became “acceptable” (i.e. had lower social and political costs than had been assumed) again from about 2010 onwards. And various so cold shock jocks wallowed in it

What I think we can learn from this is that it is easy to create an echo-chamber of mutually reinforcing bullshit that gets published in newspapers then commentated on, then reported then there is reportage on the commentating of the reportage of the commentating. It is all cheap, it is easy, and it does not need to connect to anything actually scientific.

What happened next

After becoming Prime Minister later in 2013, Tony Abbott proved that he was not a fit leader for the Liberal Party let alone by country. He was turfed by his own party after only narrowly beating an empty chair in a January 2015 vote.

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
Media United States of America

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

Forty seven years ago, on this day, September 13, 1976, a major US news network did a story on climate change.

“On September 13, 1976, ABC’s Jules Bergman did a two minute 10 second story on a National Academy of Sciences committee report on the damage done by fluorocarbons (from aerosol spray cans) to the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. Like most fluorocarbon/ ozone stories, this one cited the medical dangers of increased skin cancers, but in this case, the committee said that the most dangerous result might be a warming of the earth’s poles.” 

Sachsman, 2000 The Role of Mass Media in Shaping Perceptions and Awareness of Environmental Issues

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that journalists were, by 1976. very sensitised to the climate issue. There was the prolonged drought in the United Kingdom. Stephen Schneider had released “the Genesis Strategy,” and had made various appearances on the Johnny Carson Show. So getting the climate issue into a discussion of ozone was not that much of a stretch.

What I think we can learn from this is that decent journalists will give you a tolerably accurate version of the truth. You may need to reframe some of the factoids, but especially if it’s the business press, you will more or less be able to figure what’s going on. For all the good it will do you. 

We have known for 50 years that there was serious trouble ahead – longer in fact, but really from the early mid 70s both the theory and the evidence were coming together… And here we are.

What happened next

In 1977 the National Academy of Science released its report. George Brown managed to Shepherd the climate protection act or whatever it was called into law Carter signed this time next year ear and there was a flurry of newspaper articles and presumably television reports about the dangers of continuing to rely on coal 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.

Categories
Uncategorized

August 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 6, 1990, a BBC Panorama documentary made it as far as the colonies….

1990 Political climate [videorecording] / reporter Steve Bradshaw ; producer Charles Furneaux Published Sydney : Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1990#

 (In the UK it had been called “The Big Heat” and was broadcast on May 21.1990)

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/22a5069010204a1ea1421917335be902

The Big Heat

As the cold war ends, world leaders are already beginning to fight the climate war. They have been warned by scientists that global warming, caused by industrialisation and pollution, will cause a dramatic increase in storms, floods and droughts around the world. But there is bitter disagreement over who should pay the cost of preventing such disastrous climatic change. Should the burden fall on the west, with the risk of recession and a fall in living standards, or should Third World countries also foot the bill, even though it may mean hunger and poverty?

As part of One World week, Stephen Bradshaw reports from Britain, America and India on the politics of the climate, and reveals the latest scientific evidence on the future of our weather. Producer Charles Furneaux Editor Mark Thompson

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 there was an insatiable appetite, it seemed, for documentaries about climate change. And the ABC showing this BBC input is nothing particularly newsworthy. But this stuff was going on all the time.

What I think we can learn from this is that when an issue is hot, there is a provision of documentaries, think pieces, books, etc.  Most end up in obscurity, deserved or otherwise. Or are cited without being read.

What happened next

The moment passed, it always does. It always has until now – now the issue isn’t going away because the consequences are piling up….

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
Australia Science

May 1, 1980 – ABC talks about atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement

Forty-three years ago, on this day, May 1, 1980, the ABC  Nationwide TV programme covered climate change

Item details for: C475, 1942227  “Baseline’ station set up on Cape Grim in north-west Tasmania to monitor levels of carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Wooley refers to the ‘glasshouse effect’, prior to the now established term ‘greenhouse effect’. Permaculture, founded by Bill Mollison, could be counter to greenhouse effect.”

Source National Archives

The atmospheric ppm was 341.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists were making really accurate measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and had been for a long time. By 1980, there was more and more international awareness of the climate issue. And so for example, two weeks before the Nationwide programme, the Age newspaper, had run a story about “World ecology is endangered.” [Link to AOY]  So it may simply be that when the CSIRO sent out a press release about Cape Grim that the Nationwide producer said, “Hell yeah, there’s a hook for this.” Who knows? Lost in the mysteries, the histories of time.

What I think we can learn from this

Anyone wanting to pay attention knew what might be/was on the horizon. It’s also the case that it is much harder for researchers to figure out what was shown on television than was written in newspapers and magazines, which leave a more searchable digital trace.

What happened next

By August of that year, the Australian Academy of Science held a conference in Canberra about climate change. In 1981, the Office of National Assessments wrote a secret report about the carbon dioxide problem. But Australia continued to be largely asleep. Despite many, many attempts to wake her up. 

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