Month: July 2022

Categories
Australia Energy Industry Associations

 August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

On this day, 1st August 2015, the World Coal Association tried once again to distract people from coal’s civilisation and eco-system destroying nature. That’s (part of) its job, that’s what member companies expect in return for their subscription.

The World Coal Association (WCA) called on the World Bank to recognize the vital role of coal in bringing electricity to people in developing and emerging economies

Anon, 2015. WCA Calls on World Bank to Recognize Coal’s Critical Role. Engineering & Mining Journal, Volume 216; Issue 8, 26 1 August.

This has been going on for decades, of course. Smear competing technologies (nuclear, renewables), say you’re indispensable etc.

My personal favourite of the genre is Peabody’s brazen “Advanced Energy for Life” effort from the previous year. They must have been delighted when Australian wrecking ball turned Prime Minister Tony Abbott had parrotted that line (saying “coal is good for humanity”)  when opening a (what else) coal mine later that year.

This, from the Australia Institute in 2014, is useful

Energy Poverty and Coal “All Talk No Action” Australia Institute Report

“Ahead of the G-20 meeting in Australia later this week, a new report by an Australian think-tank convincingly punctures coal industry claims that coal is an essential part of the solution to lack of access to electricity in the developing world.

Zeroing in on Peabody Energy’s “Advanced Energy for Life” global public relations campaign, which contends coal-fired power is a cheap, effective way to provide power to the large impoverished areas of India, Pakistan and elsewhere that now have none, the new study by the Australia Institute states that, “Peabody’s only contribution to energy poverty is maintaining a website and social media page which promotes coal as the solution to the problem…. Despite extensive searches and contact with companies and mining lobby groups, we could not find a single example where coal companies have supported coal-powered energy poverty alleviation projects.” 

Meanwhile, billions of people need reliable cheap electricity, and if we had got on with developing decent sources of renewables, with storage, instead of allowing our “best minds” to make missiles, surveillance and marketing algorithms and assorted nonsense, we’d probably be a lot closer to that. Oh well.

As per this website, on this day the atmospheric CO2 ppm was 399.11

Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

We need remember that threatened technologies rarely go down without a fight, and that for coal, playing the “we’re indispensable” card.

What happened next?

They keep at it. Personal favourite is the recent claim that coal is a “transition” fuel in light of the war in the Ukraine sending gas prices through the roof.

Categories
Ignored Warnings United States of America

July 31, 1981 – US politicians hold “carbon dioxide and climate” hearings.

On this day, 31st July 1981, US congressmen got to hear from scientists.

Carbon Dioxide and Climate : The Greenhouse Effect House Committee on Science and Technology 31 July 1981.  https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002758619 

“carbon dioxide and climate, the greenhouse effect:” hearing before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, July 31, 1981.

Here’s who was there. By now you probably recognise Roger Revelle and Stephen Schneider….

You have to wonder what they were thinking/hoping, given the wrecking ball that was the Reagan Administration. But, then, what else were they supposed to do?

According to Nathaniel Rich in Losing Earth

Though few people other than Rafe Pomerance seemed to have noticed amid Reagan’s environmental blitzkrieg, another hearing on the greenhouse effect was held several weeks earlier, on July 31, 1981. It was led by Representative James Scheuer, a New York Democrat — who lived at sea level on the Rockaway Peninsula, in a neighborhood no more than four blocks wide, sandwiched between two beaches — and a canny, 33-year-old congressman named Albert Gore Jr….

The Revelle hearing went as [Gore’s fixer] Grumbly had predicted. The urgency of the issue was lost on Gore’s older colleagues, who drifted in and out while the witnesses testified. There were few people left by the time the Brookings Institution economist Lester Lave warned that humankind’s profligate exploitation of fossil fuels posed an existential test to human nature. “Carbon dioxide stands as a symbol now of our willingness to confront the future,” he said. “It will be a sad day when we decide that we just don’t have the time or thoughtfulness to address those issues.” That night, the news programs featured the resolution of the baseball strike, the ongoing budgetary debate and the national surplus of butter.

Why this matters. 

If you know you’re history…

What happened next?

Reagan

Categories
United States of America

July 30, 1979 – scientists warn US Senators about synfuels and carbon dioxide build-up

On this day 30 July 1979 Committee on Governmental Affairs one day symposium on c02 build up, synfuels and energy policy, chaired by Senator Abraham Ribicoff –

A group of scientists, warning of potential ecological imbalances and climatic changes, yesterday urged the government to slow its pursuit of a large-scale synthetic fuels program.

The scientists said the ecological changes could result from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — one assured by-product of a switch to synfuel production.

They described the so-called “greenhouse effect” whereby heat is trapped close to the earth by increased levels of carbon dioxide, and predicted some long-term effects might be erratic world food production, severe droughts in some regions and costal flooding in others

Ellison, K. (1979) Panel Warned of Synthetic Fuel Danger. Washington Post, July 31.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that some so-called solutions can make things worse – wicked problems and all that.

What happened next?

Synfuels were killed off by the Reagan Administration (not because they care about, or even knew about the scientific critique, but because they didn’t fit the narrative etc).

Categories
United Kingdom

July 30, 1989 – UK Conservative politician warns “we have at most 25 years to take action.”

On this day, July 30  1989 Conservative Politician Sir Ian Lloyd was quoted in The Sunday Times as saying ‘we have, at the most, a quarter of a century to make the assessments and take action. The life of the planet may be at stake.’

Wikipedia has him saying “civilisation is clinging by our fingernails to the cliff”. 

The man led an interesting life.

Also from wikipedia.

“He was a member of the Select committee on Technology for 10 years, and then chairman of the Select Committee on Energy for 10 years. He drove the establishment of the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee (Pitcom), and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)”

for which academic (and other) researches owe him a debt of gratitude.

Lloyd was a prescient guy who, well, later started wittering on about pyramids of uncertainty, and Bjorn Lomborg. It happens. It’s sad when it does, but it happens. See obituary here.

Why this matters. 

Did the rhetoric help us resist our own death grip? No, it didn’t. It never does.

What happened next?

We tightened the death grip on ourselves.

Categories
Science Scientists

July 29, 1974 – the World (will be heating) according to GARP

On this day, July 29 1974 a World Meteorological Organisation conference on climate modelling began, running until 10 August. 

As Bert Bolin (one of THE key figures) wrote in the foreword-

At the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in June 1972, it was emphasized that the earth’s climate is of basic importance to man and his well-being. Climatic variability and possible change are still essentially unpredictable although they are significant factors in the continued development of both industrialized and developing countries. Some of the most important problems that confront us were very well summarized in the SMIC report “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate”, (1) which was available at the UN conference and served as an important reference document. In recommendation 79d of the conference, it was recommended that the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in co-operation with the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) “continue to carry out the GARP (Global Atmospheric Research Programme) to better understand the general circulation of the atmosphere, the causes of climatic change and whether these causes are natural or the result of man’s activities”.

At its eighth session in London in March 1973, the JOC considered in detail the role of GARP for studies of climate and its fluctuations. It was proposed that the next step towards an active programme would be the organization of an International Study Conference on the Physical Basis of Climate and Climate Modelling….

The conference was held at Wijk outside Stockholm during the period 29 July to 10 August 1974 with a total attendance of about 70 scientists from different parts of the world. Their devoted work during two weeks has resulted in the present report.

https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=7112

Why this matters. 

These were the building blocks – between 1970 and 1975 – when climate scientists patiently assembled the evidence, debated, refined. By about 1976/7 it was pretty clear what was coming, just a question of when (how fast, in what order). They did try to warn the politicians. And some of the politicians kinda sorta listened a bit.

What happened next?

The scientists kept at it. (Impact) Science is very very cool.. Some joined the dots, understood the implications, quicker than others. By 1979 the smarter ones were getting quite nervous….

UPDATE 3 July 2024. See this 1995 interview with CC Warren.

WMO started already in the 1970’s to concentrate more than before on climate problems. An Executive Committee panel on Climate Change was established in 1975, with Dr. Bill Gibbs from Australia as Chairman, and CCL, under the chairmanship of Helmut Landsberg, from 1973, re-oriented its effort towards environmental problems related to climate. About the same time, in 1974, the Global Atmospheric Research Program had a meeting in Stockholm in order to agree on which problems related to climate that should be of main interest to this program in the next few years. In fact the meeting discussed the fundamental question to change the classical approach to climate studies from the statistical one towards a more physically-oriented one. In fact in the Stockholm Conference on the Physics of Climate in 1974, the numerical forecasting modelers who had worked for about ten years or more on modeling the general circulation of the atmosphere were now interested in trying to apply similar mathematical approaches to the global circulation of the atmosphere and to other aspects of understanding of the future climate. It would then be possible to clarify what could be expected to happen on the globe, if the increase of the carbon dioxide from human emissions from burning fossil fuel would continue without change.
The Global Atmospheric Research Program, when it had been accepted by the U.N. in 1962, included a proposal for a program divided into two parts: one on the experiment to improve the weather forecasting on the basis of increased observations around the globe. This experiment, proposed for about ten years by Bo Doos in WMO, had in 1974, reached a stage where it could be expected to take place within the next five years. For that reason, Dr. Bert Bolin, who was in charge of the Global Atmospheric Research Program, thought that it was timely to start with the second part of the GARP program, namely the climate part. This was the basic reason why the Conference in Stockholm in 1974 was called and the physical foundations of climate were established.

Categories
United Nations United States of America

July 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

On this day, July 28 1970 “[Journalist Claire] Sterling began an article in the Washington Post with an air of crisis, reporting breathlessly prior to the Stockholm meeting:

“Scientists still aren’t sure how much carbon dioxide we can inject into the atmosphere before heating it up enough to melt the polar icecaps, how much smog can cut off the sun’s rays without bringing a new Ice Age upon us, how many germs per cubic centimetre of water we can swallow and live, how much better or worse off the human race would actually be for using or banning DDT.”

Sterling, C. 1970. The UN and World Pollution, Washington Post, Times Herald, 28 July

.

I found this quote on page 200 of a rather excellent book called “Arming Mother Nature: The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism” by Jacob Darwin Hamblin

Why this matters. 

Yes. 1970.

What happened next?

The 1972 Stockholm Conference did less than it might have for climate science, but the scientists kept going.

Sterling wrote a totally beserk book called “The Real Terror Network”, which influenced the senile Ronald Reagan and the professional paranoids around him –

As per Wikipedia

“The book was read and appreciated by Alexander Haig and William Casey, but its arguments were dismissed by the CIA’s Soviet analysts; Lincoln Gordon, one of three members of a senior review panel at the CIA charged, at Casey’s request, with bringing non-intelligence professional and academic review to the agency, discovered comparing CIA intelligence reports and the book that at least some of Sterling’s claims had come from stories that the CIA itself had planted in the Italian press.”

Categories
Coal Denial United Kingdom United States of America

July 28, 1990 – American #climate denial comes to London

On this day, July 28 1990, journalist John Gribbin (author of several books about climate change published in the 1970s and 1980s) had a nice snippet to help us build the picture of the international efforts to scupper climate action, back in the crucial 1988 to 1992 period.;

“last month, when members of the George C. Marshall Institute, a privately funded think tank based in Washington DC, were flown in to present their maverick views on climate change, it came as no surprise to find that the room at the Hyde Park Hotel in which they gave their talks… had actually been booked by British Coal’ (John Gribbin, Why caution is wrong on global warming’. 

New Scientist, 127,  28 July 1990, p. 18)

The “George C. Marshall Institute” had been set up in 1984 to slow down environmental regulation (slippery slope to Pol Pot and Stalin, don’t you know) for a while. They became an early and important node of organised climate resistance. They were – and this is gonna shock you – funded by fossil fuel companies.

You can read more about these ass-hats in Oreskes and Conway’s “The Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.”

Why this matters. 

The transatlantic links have not weakened. They have, in fact, strengthened.

What happened next?

The UK accelerated the decline off its coal industry, and imported lots of natural gas. This made it seem like they were making progress on emissions reductions. So that’s nice.

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

July 27, 2001 – Minerals Council of Australia versus the Kyoto Protocol

On this day in 2001 the Minerals Council of Australia (the lobby group for the big mining outfits tried to stiffen the Howard government’s stance on the Kyoto Protocol with a media release with the catchy title “Government Must Stand firm on Kyoto.”.

Australia had extracted/extorted a sweet sweet deal at the 1997 negotiations about rich countries reducing their emissions. It had signed the deal, but NOT ratified it. At this particular moment, the USA had pulled out, but Australia had not. There was an election coming, and one that was not looking safe for Howard (this is pre-Tampa…) Would Howard ratify in order to deprive Labor of a stick to beat him with? The MCA wanted to make sure that unlikely event did not come to pass…

Why this matters. 

Keep your eyes on what the big trade associations are saying (and – to the best you can – doing).

What happened next?

Business ended up splitting on Kyoto – the Business Council of Australia had to move from “don’t ratify” to “we have no settled position” because there was a stalemate between the pro- and antis within the members of the organisation.

See also Howarth, N. and Foxall, A. (2010)  “The Veil of Kyoto and the politics of greenhouse gas mitigation in Australia”. Political Geography. Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.03.001

They argue that

“‘Kyoto’ has created a veil over the climate issue in Australia in a number of ways. Firstly, its symbolic power has distracted attention from actual environmental outcomes while its accounting rules obscure the real level of carbon emissions and structural trends at the nation-state level. Secondly, a public policy tendency to commit to far off emission targets as a compromise to implementing legislation in the short term has also emerged on the back of Kyoto-style targets. Thirdly, Kyoto’s international flexibility mechanisms can lead to the diversion of mitigation investment away from the nation-state implementing carbon legislation. A final concern of the Kyoto approach is how it has shifted focus away from Australia as the world’s largest coal exporter towards China, its primary customer….”

Categories
Australia

July 26, 1977 – Australians warned about cities being flooded #CanberraTimes

On this day, July 26, 1977 the Canberra Times had a story with the cheerful title cities could be flooded.

And, yes – for the third day a row, I am writing about events that happened FORTY FIVE YEARS AGO.

This is the Canberra Times getting a story off “the wire” about that National Academy of Science report that I have been banging on about for the last two days.

With the benefit of hindsight, this closing sentences are amusing.

“The report said there was no cause for panic. But Mr Revelle said, “We have to be prepared to go to other sources than coal in about 50 years”.”

Why this matters. 

The Canberra Times is one of the newspapers for the big decision makers in Australia. “We knew.” But the lurer of coal was too strong…

What happened next?

Four years later the Office of National Information (a spy/analyst outfit) wrote about the Greenhouse effect. Speedy, huh? Another four years or so and we got the Greenhouse Project, courtesy of Barry Jones’ “Commission for the Future.” But I am getting ahead of myself…

Categories
Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC United States of America

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

On this day, July 25  1997 the US Senate unanimously (95–0) passed Senate Resolution 98 (also referred to as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.

It said – contra what the USA had already agreed when it ratified the 1992 UNFCCC – that it would sign no deals that didn’t include the developing world making cuts as well. You know, those peoples who had done nothing to cause the problem, and were already on the pointy end.

This was the at the culmination of a very well-funded and well-executed campaign by US corporate interests to reframe international environmental agreements as an attack on US sovereignty, and on the employment prospects of US workers – see for example this and this..

Why this matters. 

Shows you the power of corporate mobilisations, dunnit?

What happened next?

The US negotiated a deal at Kyoto, and signed it, but it was never going to get through the Senate, even if Gore hadn’t had the 2000 election pinched from him by the Supreme Court.  Then George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto altogether, in March 2001. 

And here we are.