Eighteen years ago, on this day, October 8th, 2007,
Environmental campaigners today claimed to have taken over a power station in Kent in a protest designed to stop the prime minister, Gordon Brown, from approving the UK’s first new coal plant in more than 30 years.
Just after 5am this morning, 50 Greenpeace volunteers entered Kingsnorth coal-fired power station. One group immobilised the conveyor belts carrying coal into the plant and chained themselves to the machinery. A second group with enough provisions to last for several days, began scaling a 200m ladder up the chimney which they painted with the words “Gordon Bin It”.
Robin Oakley, a senior energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the protest posed no risk to the energy supply.
“Taking one power station off the national grid will not lead to a blackout,” he stressed. “There is plenty of spare supply in the system.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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, as per previous blog post, on October 6, Greenpeace had been occupying things since its earliest days. Meanwhile, the Climate Change Act was going through parliament and all eyes were on Copenhagen the following year as one of the many “last chances to save the Earth.”
The specific context was that the UK government of Gordon Brown was trying to sell the idea of coal-fired power plants that were “capture ready”. Ed Miliband not having one of his finest hours….
What I think we can learn from this – some forms of symbolic non-violent direct action, well-timed and executed can “work.”
What happened next
In September 2008…
“Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage during a protest over coal-fired power.
The activists were charged with causing £30,000 of damage after they scaled Kingsnorth power station in Hoo, Kent.
At Maidstone Crown Court Judge David Caddick said the jury had to examine whether protesters had a lawful excuse.”
The first CCS competition fizzled out in late 2011.
Coal was pushed out of the UK Grid from 2014 onwards. If Greenpeace and others had not acted, this would not have happened.
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 amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 that Greenpeace had been doing this sort of stuff since its very beginnings in the early 1970s.
The specific context was that “global society” was in one of its periodic 3 year periods where elites had to pretend to care about climate change (see also 1988-1992, 2006-2009, 2018-2020). Greenpeace had a “Quit Coal” campaign ahead of the COP meeting in Poznan, Poland.
What I think we can learn from this is that these sorts of stunts “work” on several levels, but don’t on a broader level – to paraphrase “you can’t climb onboard a social relationship.”
What happened next – Greenpeace kept going with this tactic, but the Arctic Sunrise – where they tried it out versus the Russians – gave them pause for thought.
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 27th, 2007,
2007 Kyoto Protocol Inaction Demonstration, Washington D.C.
Four environmental organizations including Greenpeace, Oil Change International, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, staged a protest against climate change inaction and the Bush Administration’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Demonstrators gathered outside the State Department, where Bush was (ironically) holding an international meeting on climate change. Nearly 50 activists, including Greenpeace Executive Director John Passacantando, were arrested on civil disobedience charges, i.e. refusal to disperse.
and more here – https://climateandcapitalism.com/2007/09/23/dc-rally-to-protest-bush-climate-change-conference/
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 US had signed up to the UNFCCC treaty in 1992, having made sure – via threatening to boycott the Earth Summit – that the text contained no commitments for reductions of emissions.
The specific context was that there was a huge industry lobbying effort in the run-up to the Kyoto conference (to be held in December 1997) to ensure that profits would not be harmed. This effort by the green groups is part of the fight.
What I think we can learn from this – the green groups are always outspent, of course, and are up against the Western belief that “some technology will turn up at the last minute…”
What happened next – the Kyoto conference delivered a weak protocol, which the US pulled out of in 2001. There was then an effort to create a sequel, in Copenhagen in 2009. That failed. Then, in 2015 the world-saving “Paris Agreement”, 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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 23rd, 2007,
After ten years of being a climate sceptic, John Howard begrudgingly pronounced himself a climate change realist. But while the rhetoric has changed, Government policy hasn’t. Australia’s greenhouse pollution continues to soar as the renewables industry slowly but surely packs its bags and heads overseas. Meanwhile the coal industry continues to expand with the help of massive public subsidies.
Anon, 2007. Govt climate ad campaign not so clever. Greenpeace 23 September.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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 Australian policymakers had been shitting on climate policy since the beginning.
The specific context was that Prime Minister John Howard, an enemy of sanity on climate, had been forced, in late 2006, to attempt a “reverse ferret” on climate policy. He’d appointed a panel to produce the “Shergold Report” on emissions trading. This convinced no-one, and with an election coming what could be more natural than to spend taxpayers’ money to propagandise them.
What I think we can learn from this. Stupid Evil is gonna Stupid Evil, and expect a subsidy to Stupid Evil from the public. And mostly, Stupid Evil gets what it wants.
What happened next – Howard lost the November 2007 election and, indeed, his own seat.
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.
Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, July 14th, 1996 in the midst of the second COP meeting, in Geneva the Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace combine to issue a report
Tens of millions of additional deaths a year are predicted worldwide early next century from heat waves, starvation and epidemics of infectious diseases, in a landmark report on the health impact of climate change from the greenhouse effect.
The findings increase pressure on the Howard Government to soften its pro-industry stand against action to protect the world’s climate at this week’s climate summit in Geneva.
The new report, by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Program, concluded that immediate action to combat global climate change was warranted.
In an unprecedented alliance, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and Greenpeace jointly launched the report in Sydney yesterday, soon after its release in Geneva. Both groups called on the Howard Government to step up actions to reduce emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.
Gilchrist, G. (1996) Act Now Or Risk Health Of Millions: Study Sydney Morning Herald July 15, p.5
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 COP2 was crucial, and the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network were helping the Howard government push back against the promises made in Berlin the previous year – that the rich nations would turn up in 1997’s climate conference with actual commitments to reduce emissions.
The specific context was that Greenpeace had been trying to find allies in the climate fight – be it re-insurers, medics, whatever. They knew what was at stake.
What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like Greenpeace did the right thing – trying to build alliances, explain what was at stake. Meanwhile, the wreckers were building coalitions of their own. More vicious, better funded. Guess who won?
What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. By the third decade of the 21st century, the consequences were being felt. Many nastier consequences to come….
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.
Thirty years ago, on this day, June 20th, 1995, Shell surrenders in the Battle of Brent Spar
See this from Greenpeace’s 1995 Annual Report
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that there had been a decent run of “environmental successes” (if you squint) over the previous decade, most memorably on ozone. And a “convention” on climate change (squint a LOT, ‘kay?). But the oil companies never sleep, and were looking for a cheap way of disposing of dozens/hundreds of old oil rigs. If they could get one done, then, well, the precedent is established, isn’t it?
What I think we can learn from this was that this was about the last time TNCs (transnational corporations) were under the cosh of the ENGOs (environmental non-governmental organisations) (Though I’d happily be corrected).
What happened next. The greenwashing and the lobbying kicked into higher gear. The emissions kept climbing. We are so fubarred.
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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1990, Business Review Weekly reminded subscribers who the enemy was…
In the battle for hearts and minds, the environmentalists have it all over companies. The business sector’s difficulty in grappling with the environment issue will result, sooner or later, in a company director finding himself in the dock facing charges over pollution. Both NSW and Victoria now have legislation that can render executives and directors personally liable for environment protection offences. Many within the environment movement are looking for a test case of this legislation.
In this week’s cover story BRW writer Matthew Stevens examines the challenge that Greenpeace is throwing out to Australian companies. As Stevens reports, the local branch of the international Greenpeace organisation has thoroughly reorganised itself and is armed with the latest techniques developed in the US for direct action against companies. Greenpeace is out to achieve the greatest public humiliation of those it chooses to expose.
Uren, D. 1990. Editor’s note. BRW, 8 June.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that climate change had finally “broken through” in 1988, almost 10 years later than it might have (You can write a plausible alternative history that has it all kicking off in 1979-1980).
The specific context was that the Australian mining and more-general-capitalist interests had assumed the “fad” about the Greenhouse would blow itself out. By the end of 1989 it was clear it wasn’t going to, and so the fight back began in earnest…
What I think we can learn from this
As human beings is that people with money and power like things the way they are, more or less (while always thinking about how it would be nice to have MORE money and MORE power).
As “active citizens” that there may be a delay between an issue breaking through and the response – though this is perhaps less the case now with instantaneous comms and vast networks of tooled-up, cashed-up junk tanks…
Academics might like to ponder why they rarely warn the punters about this. Could it be they are too dim to even see the pattern?
What happened next The fossil interests fought the greenies to a standstill – not intellectually, they lost all the arguments – but by tapping their friends in the Federal bureaucracy on the shoulder. The “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process ended in farce in 1992. The “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” was none of those things. The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed and the consequences, eventually, arrived. We are in the Fafocene.
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.
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Twenty-four years ago, on this day, April 19th 2001,
The difficulty for the Howard government is that its position on climate change is deeply unpopular and will cost it votes at the next federal election. A survey commission by Greenpeace Australia and released on April 19 found that 80.4% of respondents believed that Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, without the US if necessary.
The Greenpeace survey drew an angry response from industry minister Nick Minchin. “I think it’s irresponsible to be pushing this line without informing people how many jobs will be lost”, he said in an April 20 media release.
“ABARE [the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics] estimates that, even with the most optimistic assumptions, the costs to Australia of meeting the Kyoto Protocol commitments would be significantly more than a severe recession and several times that of a major drought”, Minchin said.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was a federal election coming. Climate change was likely to be – or Greenpeace would have liked it to be – a real issue. George W. Bush had just said America would not proceed with ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and everyone assumed that sooner or later, Prime Minister John Howard would follow suit.
So Greenpeace thought that they could do a survey, get some press coverage for it, put little pressure on the Liberals, maybe stiffen the spine of Labour, etc. And maybe it worked at the time.
What we learn is that these sorts of push surveys as a shot across the bows or a spine stiffener, or whatever, are a well-established political technique. What we should also learn is that they’re basically meaningless because people say all sorts of crap in a survey because they want to believe that they are the kind of person who cares. In the privacy of the ballot box people tend to vote with their ids or their wallets – and climate change doesn’t suit either of those.
What happened next? In August 2001 the Tampa nightmare happened. Or rather, the lies told by John Howard and his goons, almost 25 years ago now, happened. And Howard got another term in which he very predictably did everything he could to stop meaningful climate action. And then he got another term after that. 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.
Thirty one years ago, on this day, April 15th, 1994,
Greenpeace yesterday sought to test a new international treaty on global warming for the first time by filing a lawsuit to stop the construction of a $220 million New South Wales power station. The executive director of Greenpeace, Ms Lynette Thorstensen, said the action would test the force of the United Nations convention on climate change, which seeks to cut greenhouse gases.
1994 Kelly, H. 1994. Greenpeace Sues To Halt Building. The Age, 16 April, p.4.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia had signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which talked about stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 and of course, Australia had nominally agreed to 20% cut by 2005 though this was totally hedged with caveats to make it meaningless.
Building new coal fired power stations was going to blow an enormous hole in all of that. Ironically, this was the day that the UNFCCC became international law, because 90 days had passed since enough nations had ratified it.
What I think we can learn from this Is that government pronouncements and policy statements are not worth a bucket of warm spit unless there are vibrant, uncooptable and irrepressible social movements forcing them to keep at least some of their promises. They will promise you anything that you want to hear and worry about the consequences of being caught having broken promises later.
What happened next
Greenpeace lost that court case in, I think, November of 1994 and the coal fired power station got built.
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.
Thirty years ago, on this day, December 5th, 1994, Keating’s government was supposed to discuss a carbon tax (but it got bumped).
“Conservation groups yesterday stepped up pressure on the Federal Government to adopt tougher measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Cabinet will consider the issue tomorrow.
In Yallourn, Greenpeace activists chained themselves across railway tracks used by coal trains which feed the Yallourn W power station.
They also unfurled a huge banner down the side of one of the station’s smoke stacks.
Birnbauer, B. 1994. Greenies Mount Campaign For Greenhouse Tax. The Age, 6 December, p.3.
AND
LOCAL coal prices would double and the $8 billion export coal industry would be rendered unprofitable if Federal Cabinet introduced a new carbon levy to help reduce greenhouse gas, according to a major study released yesterday.“… But the Australian Conservation Foundation also released a new report yesterday (5 December), prepared for the ACF as a submission to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.
“On both a per capita basis and in terms of emissions per unit of GDP, Australia now has by far the highest level of all greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised world,” said ACF executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell”.
1994 Dwyer, M. 1994. Coal fire on carbon levy. The Australian Financial Review, 6 December, p.8.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Greenpeace had been launching court cases to try to stop coal-fired power stations. They’ve not been successful, sadly, no fault of their own. And also there was a carbon tax proposed by Labor Environment Minister John Faulkner (with the campaign to get this happening spear-headed by ACF). So this protest can be seen as two birds one stone sort of.
[It’d be fun to get hold of Greenpeace newsletters magazines from 1994 to ‘95. See what they had to say.]
What we learn is that nonviolent direct action against coal-fired power stations has been going on for a long time. Sadly without much success.
What happened next? Australia kept building coal-fired power stations. The carbon tax was defeated and the emissions kept climbing. We are all going to die.
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.
