Tag: The Age

Categories
Australia Science

February 11, 2006 – Nice report on CSIRO (Australian science body) getting gutted by idiots.

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 11, 2006,

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.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/10/1139542406240.html

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.

Also on this day: 

February 11, 1970 – Prince Phillip, Prince Charles and the Shell/BP “Environment in the Balance” film…
Feb 11, 1970 – Prince Charles attends “Environment in the Balance” film premiere
February 11, 1993 – Liberal Party plans would not meet climate goals, says expert
Categories
Australia

January 14, 2006 – IPA gets laughed at for its climate stance.

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 14th, 2006 one Australian offshoot of the Atlas Network had shade thrown at it by a very good Australian climate scientist.

“The Institute of Public Affairs supports, as far as I know, road rules and safety standards, for example for automotive design, medical procedures and drugs. Sensible regulation, with carrots and sticks for people to do the right thing, is necessary in an imperfect world. The same must apply to environmental damage caused by human activities that threatens future human health and welfare.”

Pittock, B. 2006 “In global warming war, may market forces be with you”, The Age, January 14. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  the Atlas Network – well, you can read about it here. The IPA, set up during WW2 had been a fairly stodgy beast, but then became a leading player in the push to the right… .

The specific context was  from 1989 the IPA had been pushing doubt and denial. They were (and still are, one assumes) proud of that..

What I think we can learn from this is that there are simple arguments – look up the Plimsoll line – that do cut through all the bullshit.

What happened next

The IPA continued on its merry way and was a major player in the denial-o-sphere of the late 2000s and early 2010s.

The emissions kept climbing. The Age of consequences (for rich white people, the only ones who matter) has begun. 

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: 

January 14, 1962 – As much truth as one can bear, James Baldwin

January 14, 2003 – WWF Australia raises the alarm – All Our Yesterdays

January 14, 2010 – Investors hold UN summit on #climate risk

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

October 10, 1997 – Australian businesses say ‘yes’ to a decent Kyoto deal

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 10, 1997, the Melbourne Age ran a front page story about businesses looking forward to Australia agreeing to actual emissions cuts…

Canberra — The Federal Government’s hard-line stance against greenhouse gas reductions has failed to win the support of Australian business.

Two-thirds of 630 company directors in a national survey across a range of sectors supported global reduction targets for Australia, with 70 per cent of those favoring a legally binding agreement.

However, directors were almost evenly divided on how targets should be set, with 50 per cent supporting a uniform goal across all countries and 48 per cent supporting different targets reflecting local economic conditions.

The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, said this week the Government would not sign an agreement unless Australia was allowed to continue increasing emissions.

He said binding, uniform targets would unfairly damage the economy, costing tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in potential investment in energy and energy-intensive export industries.

The survey on environmental realism, by KPMG and the Australian Institute of Company Directors, found that 69 per cent of directors regarded environmental measures as a cost but also as an opportunity for innovation leading to improved commercial performance.

Miller, C. (1997) Business Supports Gas Emission Cuts. The Age, October 10, page 1

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australian Prime Minister John Howard was trying to claim that business was united in opposition to a strong deal at Kyoto in which Australia agreed to be ambitious.

Someone had the bright idea to actually do an anonymous survey of business and it turns out the results were not what Howard had said. Therefore this was front page news

What I think we can learn from this

That it is good to to not take the claims of your opponents at face value and to actually test their claims especially if the claim is that “business is united behind policy X or Y”, because almost by definition there are businesses who would benefit from the status quo being shaken up and they would like the state to do some shaking up.

New businesses may be able to form trade associations and get their case under the noses of the right ministers, make ministers think “this is a constituency that can’t be ignored/fobbed off or told to piss off “ Whether those new and small trade associations can get in the media and start challenging existing “common sense” and create a new common sense is another question

What happened next

 Howard sent Robert Hill as Environment Minister to Kyoto. Australia got an incredibly generous deal, partly through good luck but also exhaustion. And essentially were told they could just keep emitting what the hell they liked. 

It was a disgrace it was possibly the most shameful moment in Australia’s climate diplomacy against some stiff competition

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

June 26, 1986 – “our children will grow old  in a world that fragmenting and disintegrating.”

On this day in 1986 the Melbourne newspaper The Age ran a decent and entirely prescient spread about the coming crisis.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the pivotal Villach conference in September 1985, scientists were pulling every lever they could. They had cred and salience because of the Ozone Hole.  The CSIRO (Australian Science Body) was, with the help of the Commission for the Future, getting its public-facing act together. More immediately, the Age had run a brief front page story on 19 June.

What we can learn

The predictions were right, give or take

What happened next

Opportunities to hold hands, proclaim our virtue and … emissions. Lots of emissions

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 Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

February 15, 2013 – the carbon bubble, will it burst?

Ten years ago, on this day, February 15, 2013, a journo for the Melbourne Age writes a piece about the then-all-the-rage topic of “unburnable carbon”

Energy analysts and activists warn that most of the world’s fossil fuels must remain in the ground, and that it can’t be business as usual for the industry.

Green, M. 2013. Bursting the carbon bubble. The Age,15 February, p.16.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

This “unburnable carbon”/”carbon bubble rhetoric was all the rage 10 years ago. It looked like the UNFCCC process was going to be a slow route back to feeling that the system could deliver. Copenhagen had been a failure, Paris was two and a half years off and it was still not clear that it would provide anything. So all those people who need to believe that there are levers and buttons in the policy sphere that we can push turn their attention to the idea that investors rather than statesmen could solve the problems; they just needed to be given stark advice that investing in stranded assets was a bad idea. 

How do you strand an asset? Well, ultimately, you need to have markets and regulations that make some investments,a bad idea and other investments a better one. How would you do that on carbon? Well, you would need a strong legally binding international agreement (which you can’t get), and therefore, we’re all toast. 

.

What I think we can learn from this

Using one “part” of the financial system – whether it is the re-insurers, the insurers, the institutional investors as the leverage point, the secret push-this-button-to-change-the-system is a long-standing and soothing idea for a certain kind of climate-motivated person. Some of them are super-smart. This does not mean they are right.

Unburnable carbon as a meme allowed people to hold conferences, put out press releases, videos, get interviewed on Newsnight and podcasts and generally feel that things were still salvageable. Am I too cynical? My therapist says so.(1)

What happened next

You hear less about unburnable carbon these days, now that Paris and Net Zero are flooding the zone.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

  1. As someone who read this before publication said – “I understand the dynamics of hoping there is a secret lever to pull, but in dismissing that at the same time as providing a psychological sort of explanation for why people keep coming back to this, you might be throwing the baby out with the bath water. There may not be a simple lever we can pull, but even if a mass movement formed which highly organized, highly effective and coordinated, competent, resourceful and dedicated, in the way you would like to see, it would still end up having to deal with the power of capital and would be highly involved in trying to pull these various “levers”

References and See Also

IPIECA on the concepts…

https://seors.unfccc.int/applications/seors/attachments/get_attachment?code=6IPYS06R1TK33GFX33NA3I1IDOJ9OHB5

July 2022 “Unburnable Carbon Ten Years On.”

Unburnable Carbon: Ten Years On