FRED Prata was flicking through some satellite pictures one day when he saw a “funny looking cloud”. It got him thinking. A few years later, that train of thought produced a piece of technology worth tens of millions of dollars — possibly hundreds of millions — every year to the international airline industry.
Chandler, J. 2006. Discarded scientists fail to grasp CSIRO logic. The Age, 11 February.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that since the permanent invasion in 1788 Australia has always been a set of settler colonies keen to exploit natural resources for short term gain. Great god development and all that… this required knowledge, science (production and, inevitably, impact science). The CSIRO was born.
The specific context was that CSIRO scientists had been at the forefront of investigating climate change impacts, from the early 1970s onwards. By the 2000s, they were under the cosh.
What I think we can learn from this is that the distinction between production science and impact science is crucial, and under-understood. And that our lords and masters are basically morons who kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
What happened next: The attacks on scientists producing inconvenient truths have continued, regardless of the party in charge. Because the parties are there to keep the “show” (or relentless extraction and accumulation) on the road.
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 Bracks Government will put at stake its environmental credentials in the lead up to next year’s State election if it allows Hazelwood power station to expand, green groups have warned.
The call comes as groups rally – around a three-storey inflatable cooling tower – at the steps of Treasury Place, where Cabinet is meeting today to finalise the proposed expansion of Hazelwood.
According to reports, the Government has signed a deal with Hazelwood, the developed world’s most polluting power station, which would cap its climate change pollution at 445 million tonnes over 25 years. If these reports are correct this deal would:
* renege on the Government’s earlier assurances that it would require reductions in Hazelwood’s pollution; * allow Hazelwood to continue operating at current emissions levels, which are the worst in Australia and among the worst in the world; * effectively provide a $16.7 billion subsidy over 25 years from the public purse, based on current European Union figures, if this emissions cap is protected from a future emissions trading scheme; and * give Hazelwood a licence to continue operating – and polluting – well beyond 2030 and provide no guarantee when the power station will shut down.
Environment Victoria’s Executive Director Marcus Godinho said if this report was correct it would be a dirty deal: “Hazelwood is the number one test for the Bracks Government. An expansion will mean failure, which will be felt at the ballot box. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this decision for the future of the environment, as well as our economy and jobs. An expansion would annihilate the Government’s environmental credibility.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions, from truly filthy brown coal, were high. In 1989 the State Electricity Commission Victoria released a report about what to do about Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We will never know what might have happened (probably not much, tbf) because the SECV got privatised
The specific context was that green groups had been plugging away, without too much sniff of victory, for a very long time.
What I think we can learn from this – we should celebrate the tenacity of the resistance, I guess? While not letting it off the hook for lack of innovation, reflexivity etc.
What happened next
According to wikipedia:
“In 2005, the Bracks government approved an environmental effects statement (EES) that allowed Hazelwood to relocate a road and a section of the Morwell River to allow access to an additional 43 million tonnes of coal in addition to that allowed under the mining licence boundaries set at the time of privatisation. This was estimated to provide sufficient coal for the plant to operate to at least 2030 (prior to decommissioning plans)….
Hazelwood was jointly owned by Engie with a 72% share and Mitsui & Co with a 28% share.[4] In 2014, Hazelwood employed 495 staff directly and on average 300 contractors. On 3 November 2016, Engie announced that the entire Hazelwood plant would be closed at the end of March 2017 giving five months notice of the closure.[5][6] The power station closed in March 2017.[7]”
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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, April 1st, 1970, a super documentary made in the UK is shown in the colonies…
Australian TV (Melbourne at least) showing And On the Eighth Day 1st April 1970 – see preview by TV critic at The Age From The Melbourne Age, 1st April 1970…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia, like the rest of the world, in the late 1960s, and especially in 1969, had really become aware of the environment problems. So a British (therefore prestigious) documentary about the issues was an obvious thing to buy, and to show.
What we learn is that there are these international networks of information. Of course there are. And people, good documentary filmmakers like Richard Broad. Their work got a big audience.
What happened next? Australia kept being informed by local scientists and filmmakers as well as international ones. And the climate issue was in the mix. In 1970-1972 – it was already there being spoken of as a serious potential problem. But we just couldn’t hold onto it as an issue. It’s too big, it’s too daunting, too all-encompassing for our species. And here we are, having failed to solve it for 50 years, by which time it becomes functionally insoluble.
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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 4th, 1970, a scientist talks about a human-induced Ice Age. Not likely, he finds.
I find that the present particulate loading would have to be increased by a factor of 5 to produce a 3°C drop in mean planetary surface temperature. This work was done in November and December of 1969 and was presented before the International Solar Energy Society in Melbourne, Australia, on 4 March 1970.
Earl W Barrett,, 1971 letter in Science
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that scientists, especially in America, were beginning to look seriously at carbon dioxide buildup at national conferences, starting to get findings. And scientists fancied an international jolly – sorry, “opportunity to network and further the advance of the human species’ knowledge.”
Australia was still in the dark ages on carbon dioxide buildup, it would be 1971-72 before scientists (Pearman, Pittock) started being paid to look at this stuff. Meanwhile, Melbourne was in the grip of its pollution fever. So Barrett’s comments will have free received interest in the media.
Also, in September 1969, the C02 issue had already been discussed by Australian scientists – in public fora.
What I think we can learn from this
“International networks of concerned scientists” etc. Science is international blah blah. But from the late 1960s, carbon dioxide was being looked at.
What happened next
In 1972 a clean air conference in Melbourne that had a specific set of papers about CO2 buildup. We ignored the scientists until 1988. Then we heard them but have basically ignored them since then.
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.
