Tag: Sydney Morning Herald

Categories
Australia

April 6, 2012 – Genetically-modified humans?

Twelve years ago, on this day, April 6th, 2012 the Sydney Morning Herald runs a piece on genetically modified humans. In it S. Matthew Liao talks about ‘a radical suggestion for fighting climate change’

S. Matthew Liao talks to the Sydney Morning Herald about changing ourselves biologically in order to fight climate change.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/final-frontier-of-climate-policy–remake-humans-20120405-1wfo6.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Copenhagen had ended in failure. The pieces of the Ming-ing International negotiation vase that had been dropped that day, were still being glued back together. It wasn’t at all clear that there would be any societal economic, political, technological response to carbon dioxide buildup worthy of the name. And so of course, attention turns to the science fiction ideas of simply adapting to a much warmer world shipped with genetically modifying corn. Why not do the same for humans? Replicants ”I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe”, etc, etc. 

What we learn is that everyone’s hungry for publicity and so outlandish shit will get printed. And somewhere in a lab in Switzerland or Boston or Tel Aviv or London, or Sydney Shanghai or Rio de Janeiro this sort of shit has probably been attempted. At least it would make a good sci fi novel. And indeed, there is that very mediocre film, The Bourne Legacy. 

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: 

 April 6, 2006 – Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

April 6, 2006 – the anti-climate dam of John Howard begins to crack…

Categories
Australia

January 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse action will send Australia to the poorhouse”

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 22nd 1992, the delayers and deniers deployed the dollar dilemma argument,

CANBERRA: Australia would be sent to the poorhouse by the Federal Government’s attitude towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was claimed yesterday.

It would be “grossly wrong” for Australia to do this at the expense of living standards in a time of recession, said the chief executive of the Australian Institution of Engineers, Mr John Enfield.

He criticised the Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, for acting “prematurely” on the issue, before further research confirmed or disproved predictions on the greenhouse effect.

Chamberlin, P. 1992. Green govt warned of poorhouse effect. Sydney Morning Herald, January, 23 p3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that although the battle against the carbon tax had really already been won, not everyone had gotten the memo. And anyway, they want to lay down some suppressing fire and that’s what was happening here, in the immediate period before the Rio Earth Summit. Industry is determined to dampen down government ambition because – nightmare – scenario -rush of blood to the head might get the government promising things (unlikely under Keating!).

What we learn. Assholes gonna asshole. 

What happened next World leaders all went to Rio (except Paul Keating, the only OECD nation leader not to attend) and they signed the empty treaty. And you know, the emissions kept climbing 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: 

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

January 22, 2002 – Exxon and on and on

Categories
Australia

October 9, 1991 – Greens get labeled religious fanatics, don’t like it.

Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 9, 1991, an Australian politics and economics commentator Ross Gittins is, well, Ross Gittins…

MY suspicion was right: the column I wrote a few weeks back about the greenhouse effect drew a sheaf of letters from readers. I write on lots of controversial subjects, but none sends the readers scurrying to their word-processors like a mention of the environment.

I argued that, since the greenhouse problem is global and Australia’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is tiny, there isn’t much we can do about it in the absence of an international agreement.

The letters were almost universally disapproving; some weren’t too polite about it. So are my views quite out of step with the Herald’s readers’? I doubt it. People who violently disagree with something they read in the paper are more inclined to put pen to paper than those who don’t.

Gittins, R. 1991. Thou shalt not stuff up the environment. Sydney Morning Herald, 9 October, p. 15. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the green moment that hit the headlines in 1988 was fading, and fading fast – even though the problems were real and getting realer. Meanwhile, Gittins needing to fill a newspaper column and get a rise out of his readers, was on display here 

What I think we can learn from this is that the conversation was never very sophisticated morally or intellectually and we’ve probably gone backwards thanks to dementia, reaction formations, organised denial, you name it.

What happened next

 Gittins kept scribbling, people got to read him. The emissions kept climbing. 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
Australia

 July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 7, 2008, the Liberal Party in Australia, perhaps bewildered to be in Opposition, started backtracking from the (pissweak) commitments it had taken to the 2007 Federal election.

THE Coalition split over climate change policy is growing, with Brendan Nelson refusing to embrace publicly the policy he has agreed to in private with senior colleagues.

Dr Nelson refused again yesterday to state simply that the Coalition supported the introduction of an emissions trading scheme regardless of whether the world’s major polluters were also prepared to act.

While taking an increasingly sceptical line towards climate change, the Opposition Leader denied there was an internal split over policy, claiming instead that it was “a question of emphasis”.

But he is falling foul of senior colleagues including the deputy leader Julie Bishop, the shadow treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull, and the environment spokesman, Greg Hunt.

Until this week the Coalition policy was to introduce a domestic emissions trading scheme no later than 2012.

On Monday [7 July] Dr Nelson walked away from that, saying nothing should be done until major polluters such as China and India were also committed, otherwise it would be economic suicide.

Coorey, P. 2008. Party lurches as Nelson shifts climate course. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 July

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Brendan Nelson had become leader of the Liberals after John Howard had lost his seat in the 2007 election. Let’s say that again. John Howard lost his seat in the 2007. Election. Nelson was by this time finding it pretty hard to square the circle because many Liberal MPs and especially National Party MPs, (the party the Liberals were in coalition with) did not like the idea that the hippies had been right and that greenhouse gases were something to worry about. And he was finding it hard to square the circle. And by this time, he must have known that Malcolm Turnbul, the ambitious  merchant wanker was circling, wanting the top job. 

What I think we can learn from this is that climate change is driving us mad both as individuals but also as organisations. It is an impossible object, a bit like what Captain Picard wanted to implant in the captured Borg in that episode of Star Trek. It is simply driving everyone mad because to use an old Marxist bit of jargon, “the contradictions” cannot be contained and papered over indefinitely.

What happened next is that Turnbull knifed Nelson, tried to bring the Liberals along with climate policy, was left swinging by Kevin Rudd, was then toppled and took everyone by surprise. Tony Abbott became opposition leader. Turnbull eventually toppled Abbott as Prime Minister in 2015. Yes, this is a soap opera. And then Turnbull was himself toppled as Prime Minister. And one of the people who voted against him in that leadership contest mentioned, Brendan Nelson The writers of the soap opera have clearly been paying attention to the back catalogue, and taking way too much acid.

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 Uncategorized

 March 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 14, 1997, a Liberal senator spews his usual nonsense.

Senator Parer seems to be an exception. For instance, at the Australasian Institute of Minerals and Metallurgy Annual Conference at Ballarat Senator Warwick Parer said: “I don’t have any figures to back this up, but I think people will say in 10 years that it [greenhouse] was the Club of Rome” and “The attitude of this government is to look for ways to allow projects to go ahead.” The SMH (14.3.97 ‘Greenhouse effect? No worries says Parer’.).

(Duncan, 1997:83)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Warwick Parer – and I can say this because he’s dead – was a shonk and he caused political problems for Howard. He was the kind of old white man who wants to believe that physics doesn’t exist. And so he came out with that idiotic line about in 10 years, dot, dot dot. And Howard was busy, by this time, trying to do nothing or commit Australia to nothing around the Kyoto Protocol.

What I think we can learn from this

Old white men who don’t like the consequences of industrialization will try to wish it away. And they will predict that the whole fad will die. And it hasn’t, and it won’t

The basic question of how we’re supposed to survive the 21st century behaving as we do, has not yet been answered. 

What happened next

Parer was sacked as Minister in 1998. He produced an anti renewables report in 2002. He died in 2014. 

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

Transcript of Kerry  O’Brien and John Howard –https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-10644

Categories
Australia

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

On this day, December 29 in 1995, the Sydney Morning Herald had a front page story from its very very competent and clear environment beat hack.

“With 1995 in its dying days, global records compiled by British climate scientists show that it has been the planet’s hottest year since reliable records began.

With 11 months’ data from every continent and ocean, they are confident that it will emerge as the hottest year in the past 140, putting pressure on world governments to take more seriously the negotiations for the Climate Change Convention”

Gilchrist, G. (1995) Scorcher Of A Year Rekindles Fears Of Greenhouse Mayhem. Sydney Morning Herald, 29 December , p1.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 361ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Things had been heating up, fairly steadily. 1995 was also a “hot” year in terms of climate science and the fights around it, with the denialists getting barbed wire wrapped around their baseball bats and swinging for the offences…

Why this matters. 

We have watched it warm up

What happened next?

In response to this, Australian policymakers said. “We’re gonna make it easier to dig up and burn/sell coal. Obvs. And kneecap anyone who tries to get in the way. Double obvs.”

And that is exactly what they did, Labor or Liberal. And here we are.

Categories
Australia

December 6, 2006-  Turns out 0.1% of a Very BIG NUMBER is … quite a lot…

On this day, December 6 in 2006, Australian journo Elizabeth Farrelly points out that, despite those grifters hiding behind the “only 0.x% of emissions” want you to believe, 0.x% is still a big deal.

Elizabeth Farrelly of the Sydney Morning Herald was alive to the same issue when she questioned whether the 0.1 per cent of global emissions which would come from Anvil Hill was ‘in fact so small when even 0.1 per cent of the Stern review’s estimated $9.1 trillion cost of climate change gives $9.1 billion.

(Bonyhady, 2007: 17)

Farrelly, E. 2006. Victories for the Environment Turn Up Heat. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 December. 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 382ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The coal mining boom was in full swing. Its defenders needed to find ways to avoid scrutiny.


Also, vale Pete Gray.

Why this matters. 

It’s a basic point – don’t let people bullshit you with percentages, when it is the absolute numbers wot matter.

What happened next?

The coal mine got built. Of  course it did.

Categories
Australia

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

On this day, August 7 1995 journalist Gavin Gilchrist reports – front page of the Sydney Morning Herald – on the dodgy AF “MEGABARE” model

“The Keating Government is secretly developing a major diplomatic offensive that will undermine efforts to protect the world’s climate.

Confidential documents from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade show that the strategy relies heavily on a major government study that ignores the environmental benefits of tough action on global warming and instead highlights short-term economic costs.

It is a strategy that threatens to scuttle coming international negotiations on global emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.

The study, MEGABARE, was produced by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) in Canberra and has been funded heavily by the coal industry, which is fighting controls on greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, is produced by burning coal, oil or gas.

The Australian Coal Association has confirmed that it contributed $100,000 to MEGABARE. The Business Council of Australia and the coal producers BHP and CRA also contributed.

Gilchrist, G. 1995. Secret Strategy Undermines Greenhouse fight. Sydney Morning Herald, 7 August. P.1

This was months after a carbon tax proposal had been defeated. Ho hum.

On this day the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 359.33 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

The economic models were a joke, but that was not an accident. That was a feature, not a bug. Politicians could stand up and say any move from fossil fuels towards renewables would lead to imminent and unutterable chaos, cannibalism and despair.

What happened next?

MEGABARE was eventually killed off, but the use of joke economic models has continued. Too useful not to continue to be used.