Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 3, 1994, news reached the colonies of an event that had actually happened on Wednesday June 1… – Greenpeace International’s release of ‘The Climate Timebomb’.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Greenpeace trying to get people to understand that the increasing number of weather disasters and extremes are in fact a climate time bomb. The United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change had been ratified. And by enough countries the UNFCCC itself the text was no great shakes and Greenpeace was well aware that more needed to be done. And were trying to get insurers and reinsurers interested.
What I think we can learn from this is that using “natural disasters” to convince people that climate is a pressing issue hasn’t really worked. Because people have short memories, because of shifting baselines, because people don’t want to stare into the abyss. And because until recently attributing any specific disaster or event to climate was problematic at best.
What happened next
Greenpeace kept trying to do what it could on climate. And you can have criticisms – I do – but they’ve been on the side of the angels as opposed to the fossil fuel shills.
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 years ago, on this day, February 17, 2003, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr (long aware of climate problems) accuses John Howard of merely going along with the US in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
Bob Carr has today released a new report, sponsored by three Labor states, that he says shows that the cost to Australia of not joining the treaty will be higher than joining it. It claims that countries that do not ratify the agreement on greenhouse gas emissions will lose out on future investment opportunities in renewable energies.
Mr Carr has also proposed setting up a new office in New South Wales to oversee the use of renewable energy and carbon emissions.
He says if the Prime Minister will not act then he is forced to show leadership on the issue. “I think it’s not unfair to say of our Prime Minister, that all his instincts are very, very conservative and he’s going along with America,” he said. “He’s going along with America but if there was ever a case for running a policy independent of Washington this is it.”
ABC, 2003 Carr accuses Howard of poor leadership. 17 February 2003
Meanwhile, on the same day, Greenpeace tried to widen the existing split within the Business Council of Australia over the Kyoto Protocol….
SYDNEY, Feb 17, AAP – One of Australia’s big four banks has indicated its support for an international treaty to cut greenhouse gases.
Greenpeace today said initial findings of its survey of Business Council of Australia (BCA) members revealed Westpac supported the aims and objectives of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol
AAP. 2003. Westpac supports Kyoto Protocol – Greenpeace. Australian Associated Press Financial News Wire, 17 Feb
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
John Howard was cuddling up to George Bush on everything – the attack on Iraq, trashing climate diplomacy, you name it. Carr was busy still trying to turn New South Wales into some sort of exemplar, at least for carbon trading (thus the report and the Gore-schmoozing).
Meanwhile, Greenpeace was having to do WWF’s job of splitting the business sector, because WWF was being very friendly with Howard (though to be fair, later in 2003, WWF tried to grow a pair. Sort of).
What I think we can learn from this
Finding/enlarging splits between government and business and splitting apart the (usually superficial) unity of business is something that NGOs can be good at. Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation kept at it, and it sort of bore fruit in 2006. Strange fruit, but fruit. Sort of (no, not really, but what are you going to do?)
What happened next
Howard never signed up for Kyoto, to his cost in 2007
Various “pro”-climate business groupings have come and gone since 2003. Lots of warm words, not much else, though they would all dispute that, naturally.
Carr stopped being Premier in 2005, and later served as Julia Gillard’s Foreign Affairs Minister
And we all lived hotly ever after, until we didn’t.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
On this day, July 3, in 2008, 27 Greenpeace activists entered the 2,640 megawatts Eraring Power Station site north of Sydney to call for an energy revolution, and took direct action to stop coal from being burnt.
“Twelve protesters shut down and chained themselves to conveyors while others climbed onto the roof to paint ‘Revolution’ and unfurled a banner reading ‘Energy Revolution – Renewables Not Coal’. The action preceded the Australian government’s climate change advisor Professor Ross Garnaut’s delivery of his Draft Climate Change Review on July 4”
Greenpeace activists, including an ex-miner, block the coal supply to the Eraring coal-fired power station by locking on to the coal conveyors. Eraring is Australia’s most polluting coal-fired power station and is responsible for 13% of Australia’s greenhouse pollution. The old and inefficient plant sends nearly 20 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution into the atmosphere every year. Each hour the coal supply is blockaded, prevents 2,000 tonnes of CO2 being released. As the government’s climate change advisor, Ross Garnaut, prepares to deliver his draft review in Canberra, Greenpeace calls for urgent action on climate change. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd must deliver policies that upscale renewable energy and start replacing dirty coal-fired power.
Why this matters.
We resist. Weakly, inadequately, but we resist.
What happened next?
The power station is finally being decommissioned. (Not much) better late than never.
The 2003 Energy White Paper had been very lukewarm on nuclear indeed, and this speech by Blair was the culmination of a determined lobbying fightback…
Why this matters
We need to remember that most “consultations” are window-dressing. They’ll be heavily publicised if they go the “right” way, and used as a stick to beat those opposed as “anti-democratic”. If the results aren’t what those in power wanted, they’ll be buried (released at 5pm on a Friday afternoon etc) and dismissed as “having been hi-jacked by well-organised special interests.”
What happened next
Greenpeace took the government to court over the shonkiness of the consultation, and in February 2007 they won, for what it is worth.
Despite all the plans and announcements, the nuclear power stations were not built – one in the last 12 years, massively over-budget.
Meanwhile, energy efficiency and onshore wind are ignored as ever., and the overarching question of energy demand reduction is deep in the hole.
