Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 10, 1991, the New York Times ran a story that has become very very familiar.
The earth was warmer in 1990 than in any other year since people began measuring the planet’s surface temperature, separate groups of climatologists in the United States and Britain said yesterday.
A third group, in the United States, reported record temperatures from one to six miles above the earth’s surface. These were recorded from balloons from December 1989 through November 1990.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .
The context was that the US had finally been forced to agree to take part in negotiations for a world climate treaty (what became, in June 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The denial and delay campaigns were kicking into gear (the so-called ‘Global Climate Coalition’ doing its predatory delay thing). Part of the context for the whole climate awakening was how warm the 1980s had been (mild by today’s standards, of course).
What I think we can learn from this
The “warmest year ever” meme does not, on its own, ‘wake up the sheeple’. If you want to have effective long-term action, you need effective long-term social movement organisations.
Fifty years ago, on this day, January 9, 1973, British Prime Minister Ted Heath sets up a Department of Energy.
On December 13th 1973, Prime Minister Edward Heath announced a 3-day working week to ration electricity use. Parliament was recalled on January 9th 1974 to hear that a new Department of Energy was being set up to co-ordinate the government’s response. However, the crisis brought down the government the following month. The incoming Labour government, under Harold Wilson, settled the miners dispute, and the new Energy Secretary, Eric Varley, ended the 3-day week on March 7th 1974. Mallaburn & Nick Eyre (2014)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .
The “environment” had been considered important enough to have its own Department in 1970, and now it was the turn of “energy”.
What I think we can learn from this
When governments set up new departments, it can be a serious and long-lasting move, or it can be, well, the appearance of action. Even if they set it up for appearance sake, sometimes it creates new opportunities for an inconvenient rash of sanity to break out
What happened next
The oil price hike saw the end of the so-called thirty glorious years of “unproblematic” (ha ha) economic growth, followed by stagflation, all sorts of difficulties, the collapse of the Keynesian consensus. And then, in the late 1970s, the coming of Thatcher and then 18 months later, of Reagan… as celebrated (? mourned?) in the REM song Ignoreland, of which more later.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References and See Also
Is The UK Heading For 1970s-Style Organised Blackouts?
Ten years ago, on this day, January 8, 2013, soon-to-be-ex Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard pointed out the obvious…
“the Australian Bureau of Meteorology released an interim special climate statement on the extreme January heat Australia is currently experiencing. Record temperatures both day-time maximum and night-time minimums continue to be broken. The extraordinary heatwave has also been the scene for catastrophic fires, especially in Tasmania. The Prime Minister Julia Gillard saw the devastation in Dunalley and among her many interviews and press conferences made a brief statement connecting the intensity of bushfires with climate change.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was that Gillard had been politically slaughtered by the “carbon tax” battle of 2011, thanks to the Murdoch press, the effectiveness of Tony ‘wrecking ball’ Abbott (soon to be exposed as a terrible Prime Minister) and the white-anting of the pro-Kevin Rudd forces in her own party.
Gillard was far from perfect (as we shall see later in this series) but she definitely got a raw deal. And her comments, and the connections she made, they should have helped wake more people up. But, well, here we are…
What I think we can learn from this
There comes a point where even if you’re right, thanks to what has gone before, you’re not gonna be listened to. So your choices sort of become shut up and resign yourself to the fact that your experience/wisdom is going to be ignored and the same mistakes will be made, with nobody listening, or find a new audience/new ways of expressing, and perhaps a proxy with less baggage (this wasn’t an option for Gillard, obvs).
What happened next
Gillard was toppled by the guy she had toppled (Kevin Rudd). Tony Abbott became the next Prime Minister and was clearly the worst Prime Minister ever. At least for a few years. There’s always a way to stop scraping the barrel, move it to one side and keep on digging….
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Twenty years ago, on this day, January 8, 2003, the US business press reports on what we now call “carbon capture and storage”
“A potential solution to global warming could lie two miles deep, both underground and in the ocean.”
Global warming has been linked to emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the by-product of burning fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. So, some scientists are examining ways to curb the gaseous emissions: burying them underground or injecting them into the ocean.
The technology, known as carbon sequestration, is used by energy firms as an oil-recovery tool.
But in recent years, the Department of Energy has broadened its research into sequestration as a way to reduce emissions. And the energy industry has taken early steps toward using sequestration to capture emissions from power plants.
Even some environmentalists support carbon sequestration, although they generally object to the ocean-storage method. Partly because of environmental concerns about the ocean, government researchers are leaning toward underground storage as a preferred procedure.
Loftus, P. 2003. Energy Firms Bury Carbon Emissions. Wall Street Journal, 8 January.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was that US President Bush, shortly after being awarded the Presidency by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, had reneged on a campaign promise to regulate carbon emissions and then pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol process (not that the US had ever been likely to ratify!). Therefore he had need of technofixes so that people who wanted/needed to believe him but who also needed to pretend (including to themselves) that they cared about climate action, could sleep at night.
The whole CCS caravan was beginning to move – there had been a meeting in Regina, Canada in November 2002, and the IPCC was about to start ball rolling on its CCS special report.
What I think we can learn from this
Stories of techno-salvation are very very important. They will have a lot of friends, a lot of inertia. Turning those stories into reality, or exposing those stories is trickier, however.
What happened next
Dumping carbon dioxide in the deep oceans is now legally a no-no. London Protocol etc. Actual working CCS that doesn’t involve enhanced oil recovery? Still waiting…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Australian activist Jonathan Moylan recalls the non-violent climate action that could have sent him to jail
Ten years ago today, at the age of 22, I hit send on a media release before brewing a pot of coffee. I didn’t realise it at the time, but that spoof release, which was intended to paint a picture of a better world, ended up causing ripple effects that reverberated around the world.
At stake was the Leard State Forest, the largest intact area of native vegetation in the heavily-cleared Liverpool Plains, the centre of a critical biodiversity corridor that was part of the Nandewar-Brigalow bioregion, providing connectivity for species between the Kaputar ranges to the north and the Pilliga to the south. Habitat for koalas, regent honeyeaters and an incredible array of bats and microbats, the forest was being targeted by three large open-cut mines that would rip the forest apart.
I hadn’t heard of the Leard Forest or the neighbouring community of Maules Creek until the previous year, but for years the community had been working together to protect their region from open-cut mining. They were not opposed to mining per se, and would have tolerated an underground mine, but were worried about losing road access to Maules Creek during floods due to the planned closure of Leard Forest Road, as well as the threat of ten metres of aquifer draw-down, property devaluation, noise and dust.
Yet despite their reasonable proposals, thousands of dollars spent on independent consultant reports and some political support across the spectrum, the mine was approved by the NSW Government in late 2012 – all that remained was a determination from the federal government.
At the time, Whitehaven’s Maules Creek project was the largest new coal mine being considered in NSW and would increase coal tonnages through the world’s largest coal port in my hometown of Newcastle by ten percent. Yet despite the contention around the mine and its enormous contribution to climate change, the mine also secured a $1.2 billion loan facility from ANZ bank.
While it was rare at the time, in the ten years following 2013 we’ve seen a growing number of banks worldwide rule out finance for new coal projects following pressure from communities, shareholders and regulators given heightened awareness that climate change poses acute, chronic and systemic risks to the financial sector and the economy as a whole. Cracking down on companies making misleading claims about their climate credentials is now a priority for ASIC, the corporate regulator.
That would have been unimaginable in 2013, when the press release I sent out on ANZ’s letterhead – which was quickly revealed to be a hoax – announced that ANZ was withdrawing its loan to Whitehaven on ethical grounds. I only realised how serious things would get after a call from a journalist at the Washington Post who told me that Whitehaven’s share price had dropped by 9% – before recovering some twenty minutes later. Soon what start as a small protest camp in the forest with a handful of people became a two-year-long effort bringing thousands of people from all walks of life – doctors, lawyers, a former mining engineer and even former Wallabies flanker turned senator David Pocock – to take action in an effort to prevent the damage the mine would bring. More extraordinary was the incredible alliance of Gomeroi traditional owners, farmers and environmental groups who found common cause in a way that has probably permanently transformed the social fabric of the region.
Cracking down on companies making misleading claims about their climate credentials is now a priority for ASIC, the corporate regulator. That would have been unimaginable in 2013,
As I quickly learnt, any misleading statement that could impact on the sharemarket carried severe consequences. Officers from the securities regulator ASIC flew up to camp to seize my phone and computer and ordered me to appear for compulsory questioning – with no right to silence. Four months later I was charged with an offence that carried a maximum penalty of 10 years jail or $750 000 in fines. They were entitled to do this – although nobody had previously been charged under that false and misleading provision of the Corporations Act – it was a strict liability offence, which meant that the fact that I didn’t expect or intend an impact on the share price or wasn’t a participant in the sharemarket was irrelevant to the charge.
Suddenly I found myself in the middle of an incredibly high-pitched and polarising debate that played out in the media and in parliament for weeks. In some minds, I had deliberately set out to cause damage to the market. The bigger issue of the irreversible harm that would be caused to the world’s life support systems – on which we all depend – was at risk of being lost. For many others though, the notion of jailing a young man for drawing attention to a destructive new coal project galvanised support.
For its part, Whitehaven is no stranger to being on the wrong side of the law, having been penalised for illegal mining, illegal dumping, water theft, failure to declare political donations and illegal land-clearing. Yet the penalties meted out in those cases have never come close to meeting their gravity.
The broad-based campaign did more than delay the mine for several years. Public opinion has finally started to turn amidst a realisation that global coal demand has already peaked and renewables will win the race – the only question is when. The community continues to hold out against proposed coal expansions and coal seam gas threats in North-West NSW.
Throughout the ensuing court case, I was told by lawyers that the most likely outcome was a prison sentence of around a year. I was willing to accept the consequences, even though it was virtually unheard of for anybody to face prison time for a protest action in NSW. Ultimately I was sanctioned with a suspended sentence.
Throughout the ensuing court case, I was told by lawyers that the most likely outcome was a prison sentence of around a year
What’s harder to accept is the notion that with everything we know about the consequences of mining and burning fossil fuels, some companies are still entertaining significant new coal, oil or gas expansions. Yet as a United Nations panel determined last November, any bank that continues to claim it is committed to net zero emissions while lending to companies pursuing fossil fuel expansions is misleading the public.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge in ten years. But there is still much more to do.
All Our Yesterdays exists to inform people about the long histories of climate change – the science, the politics, the technology, the protest movements. It hopes to spark discussions among citizens’ groups about what we need to do differently to make the radical rapid changes required,…If you are someone, or know someone who should be writing a guest post/giving an interview, please say so in the comments below…
Ten years ago, on this day, January 7, 2013, an Australian climate activist sent out a press release pretending to be a bank…
Jonathan Moylan of Front Line Action on Coal … purported to be ANZ’s Group Head of Corporate Sustainability, Toby Kent. Mr Moylan falsely claimed that ANZ was cancelling its $1.2 billion loan facility for Whitehaven Coal’s open-cut mine project in Maules Creek, NSW.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 395.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .
The context was that, as ever, state governments were bending over forwards, backwards, sideways to make it easier for companies to dig up and sell coal to people who would burn it. And activists had tried all the legal means to try to stop it, getting tied up in consultations, petitions etc etc. And then they branched out, into other non-violent (but certainly illegal) tactics…
Moylan had been living in the forest for months. He’d started the Maules Creek blockade in the hopes of stopping the mine. The protest made headlines when Wallabies star David Pocock was arrested for chaining himself to a bulldozer. But when the New South Wales government gave it its final tick of approval, Moylan’s hopes were dashed.
“The only two legitimate options were to try and get the (then) federal environment minister Tony Burke to protect the critically endangered woodland in the Leard State forest or to get the ANZ Bank to try and change its decision about financing the project.”
What I think we can learn from this
Making fun of money gets you in trouble. See that early Michael Haneke film “The Seventh Continent”, where well, spoilers, cash is destroyed
What happened next
On Friday 25 July 2014 Jonathan Moylan was sentenced by the Supreme Court: 1 year 8 months, suspended with the condition of good behaviour for 2 years.
Non-violent protest continues in Australia, despite the best efforts of State and Federal governments to chill it with ever more draconian policing and sentencing
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
McVeigh, S. (2017) “I wanted to stop the mine”: Jonathan Moylan and the $300 million hoax. ABC 3 October https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/jono-moylan/9010874
Twenty eight years ago, on this day, January 6, 1995, as part of a broad attack on a proposed carbon tax, business whined “yeah, but no other country is doing anything.”
”THE business push for a cautious approach by the Federal Government on greenhouse gas controls has been given a boost by a new study which shows only a handful of countries will meet their emission reduction targets.
The study, prepared by industry groups, shows only five of the 36 countries which are key members of the International Panel on Climate Change appear likely to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2000.”
Dwyer, M. & Wilson, N. (1995). Study argues against $320m carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.5. (See also the editorial – Anon. 1995. The trouble with a carbon tax. Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.12)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2023 it is 419
.
The context was that Australian business interests had already defeated a carbon tax proposal in the lead up to the Rio Earth Summit, and were mobilising an even broader coalition of actors and ‘arguments’ (including our old friend ‘the sky will fall’ economic modelling) in this effort.
What I think we can learn from this
The fact that doing anything about climate change is a really hard collective actor problem is used to make climate change a really hard collective actor problem, and to ‘justify’ (excuse) doing nothing, and engaging in predatory delay.
What happened next
The business lobby effort was successful (for multiple reasons). The carbon tax was abandoned. Attention switched to emissions trading schemes. No actual carbon price came into play until 2012. And was then swiftly killed off by the next Australian government. The emissions and the atmospheric concentrations? They climbed. Of course they did.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Dwyer, M. & Wilson, N. (1995). Study argues against $320m carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.5
This did not emerge from nowhere. As Janet Martin-Nielson (2018: 229) writes
“After nine years of development, the 5-level GCM was finally published in 1972 in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. 18 In the same year, Gilchrist, Corby, and Newson released their results on climate and sea-surface temperature anomalies, and Newson published his work on the climatic impacts of Arctic sea ice melt in Nature.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 328.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 417. .
The context was that scientists through the 50s and 60s were getting interested in long-term climatic change, and some of them had proper computers to play with (the whole Charney, von Neumann, Phillips thing is beyond this site, but you could check out Paul Edwards’ book “A Vast Machine” if you really like.)
What I think we can learn from this
This stuff is complex. Smart people have had to expend a lot of mental effort to get a grip. The rest of us get to stand on each others’ shoulders and toes.
What happened next
The models got better. The politicians were warned. The politicians did not lead. Nor were they forced by social movements to lead. And here we are.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Edwards, P. 2010. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. MIT Press.
Martin-Nielson, J. 2018. Computing the Climate: When Models Became Political.Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences (2018) 48 (2): 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2018.48.2.223
Forty-five years ago, on this day, January 4, 1977,
“Representative George Brown, Jr. (D-CA) introduced legislation to serve two functions: (1) improve the scientific reliability of climate prediction, and (2) fund applied climatological research to improve the resilience of American society in the face of climate-induced stresses. Frustrated that his previous attempt to pass climate legislation had failed to translate into any national climate policy during the Ford Administration, Brown believed that the time had come to firmly integrate climate into national planning.10 ‘‘I believe we have reached a maturity and urgency of scientific and popular interest which makes possible a successful drive toward scientific, executive branch, and legislative consensus on the design of a national and coordinated climate program,’’ he reasoned on the House floor.11 “
(Henderson 2016)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was
By the mid-1970s, scientists from various countries (including the US, the UK, Sweden, Germany) were starting to look at carbon dioxide build-up and say “you know, shit could get real” (I paraphrase). Some politicians, including Brown, were listening. So was Olof Palme, Swedish Prime Minister. Other politicians were not, and are still not.
What I think we can learn from this
Some politicians have been trying to get money for research for a long time, with varying success. Since 1988, some politicians have been trying to help the species be less stupid on climate change. With much less success. We needed radical social movements, but instead we got captured and tamed eco-modernisation shills. Oh well…. (see this letter in the Financial Times).
What happened next
President Jimmy Carter did, later in 1977, sign some legislation. Things were moving, a bit. Then came Reagan…
Thirty-nine years ago, on this day, January 3, 1984, the New York Times science journalist Walter Sullivan had a story that began with words that could have been written yesterday, more or less…
“A GLOBAL strategy to reduce a potentially dangerous increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has been outlined by engineers and economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University.
“In a report to the National Science Foundation, the specialists propose that the use of fossil fuel, largely responsible for the carbon dioxide increase, can be substantially reduced by greater efficiency in energy production.”
Sullivan had been writing about carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere for the NYT since the early 1960s (having become aware of the issue during his coverage of the 1957-8 International Geophysical Year).
The report’s lead author, David Rose had been quoted in an August 1980 Wall Street Journal article (which we will come to later) as saying that if the CO2 theory were right “that means big trouble.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 344ppm. As of January 2023 it is 417. .
The context was that by the mid-late 1970s, US scientists were able to get funding for decent studies of carbon dioxide build-up, and were even getting some sympathetic hearings from the Jimmy Carter White House. That all ended when Reagan and his goons turned up… In October 1983 two “conflicting” reports about CO build-up had been released. (something AOY will cover later this year).
What I think we can learn from this
We knew. As I have argued here, and elsewhere, ad infitum and nauseam, there is not an information deficit,,but there is a sustained radical social movements deficit.
What happened next
The issue finally was forced onto the agenda in 1988. Reports like the MIT/Stanford one have been written pretty much every year since then. Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gses have climbed almost every year. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have gone up and up and up.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Rose, David J.; Miller, Marvin M.; Agnew and Carson E. (1983) “Global energy futures and CO\2082-induced climate change: report prepared for Division of Policy Research and Analysis, National Science Foundation https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/60493
