Categories
Science United States of America

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

Fifty years ago, on this day, February 8 1973, American ecological thinker Barry Commoner talks greenhouse effect and fossil fuels to US politicians.

“This is a very complicated phenomenon, and a good deal of study is underway. But it seems to me that in the long run it would be best to get away from using fossil fuel.” https://climatebrad.medium.com/climate-hearings-af27a3886a43

February 8 — Dr. Barry Commoner, hearing on the Council on Energy Policy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was

Barry Commoner by this stage was “Mr. Environment.” He’d appeared on the cover of Time in February of 1970. His book “The Closing Circle”, and the other one were very well received and known. Commoner had been writing about, in passing, the buildup of CO2 for several years. And his statement here is a reasonable summation I guess of what was going on.

What I think we can learn from this

US politicians, especially House members and senators, were well informed or aware of the carbon dioxide buildup issue a lot earlier than you might think. The hilarious “Grant Swinger” parody that we will come to in the middle of the year makes more sense once you know this…

What happened next

Commoner ran for president in 1980, as did one of the Koch brothers. Neither of them troubled the scorebook particularly. In the short term, the first oil shock made all of this moot because coal was on the comeback (making Carl “Mr Coal” Bagge happy – we will come to this).

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

Categories
United Kingdom

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 7 1979, the had of the Met Office John Mason, sent a deeply disingenuous letter to Kenneth Berrill, a senior civil servant who had been responsible for getting an interdepartmental committee formed to look at the possibility of climate change caused by carbon dioxide build-up, and what implications that would have for the UK.

 And early in 1979, [Mason] wrote directly to Berrill, describing the carbon dioxide problem as of ‘‘immediate importance’’ and assuring Berrill that he was pouring resources into the problem. This engagement with CO2 climate change represented an about-turn in Mason’s position.  (Martin-Nielsen, 2018)

CAB 164/1422 B. J. Mason to K. Berrill, re: ‘‘Economic Effects of Climatic Change,’’ 7 Feb 1979, KEW

This – February 1979 – was just as Mason was about to fly off to the First World Climate Conference in Geneva, where he would… make sure that carbon dioxide was not agreed as an immediate threat. Whether Berrill noticed, or cared, I don’t know….  You can read about Mason’s performance in Geneva in Stephen Schneider’s memoir “Science as a Contact Sport.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

John Mason, as head of the Meteorological Office had been dismissive of carbon dioxide build up as something to be concerned about for several years. The notion that this was a U-turn from Mason, is not necessarily accurate.. Another reading of the situation is that Mason was merely bending to reality because an Intergovernmental Committee on climate had already started meeting it in late 1978.

What I think we can learn from this

Behind any creation of a committee or a report, there is always politics that you don’t see usually at the time or even later – things that are either not leaked or kept secret or in fact, never actually written down, but said in passing and in corridors.

This creates problems for historians trying to recreate “what really happened.”  Secondly, we learn that people are capable of pretending they’ve changed their mind, if it is politically expedient for them to do so.

What happened next

The Climatic Change report was subjected to attempts to suppress it, and was finally released in February 1980 as a “nothing to see here” document. You can read about this in four days on this website.

References

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

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Uncategorized

February 6, 1995 – Australian business versus a carbon tax

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 6 1995, co-ordinated action to defeat a carbon tax was on display

 “As part of its media strategy, the network sent out a series of five news releases on 6 February 1995 under the banner Carbon Tax Threatens Regional Jobs. The releases focused on the regions that would be most affected by the introduction of carbon tax.”

(Worden, 1998: 87)

The Business Council of Australia press release is a corker. A carbon tax  “could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries” and have “a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries” (Thomas 1995)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was

John Faulkner, the Federal Environment Minister, had a proposal for a carbon tax that would fund research and development of renewable energy. Business organisations hated this so they dusted off their 1990-2 playbook and improved it. Press releases from various actors were coordinated, to influence the minds of those people (especially ministers) who were attending two round tables on consecutive days.

What I think we can learn from this

When threatened (or merely feeling threatened), business is very good at putting aside their individual differences and presenting a united front. They have the resources, and Secretariat usually, to do that. Whereas those advocating for a better world tend to be running on the sniff of an oily rag.

What happened next

Faulkner’s plan was defeated. Australia didn’t get a price on carbon until 2012.

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

References

Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.

Categories
IPCC United States of America

Feb 5 1990 – A president says what he is told…

On this day, 33 years ago, February 5 1990, President George H.W. Bush gave a welcoming address to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was then meeting in the US to push towards its first report (released May/August that year).

https://www.c-span.org/video/?11033-1/presidential-address

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had mouthed all the right words on the campaign trail in 1988 “those who worry about the Greenhouse Effect are forgetting about the Whitehouse Effect” blah blah.  Once in office, he’d allowed various attack dogs to slow down any progress.

The speech, we now know, had been the subject of bureaucratic fighting…

REINSTEIN: The President made a welcoming speech at the January 1990 meeting, but it was unusually warm. Every time we hosted an international meeting on climate change, it was exceptionally warm, record warmth for the day.…

As an indication of the White House approach, the leaders of the Energy Department and EPA had collaborated to produce a text for the President for this meeting, and they proudly brought it to the White House and gave it to [pictured, White House Chief of Staff] John Sununu saying, “We have got a statement here that both of us can agree on: Energy and environment.”

Sununu’s response was to tear up the document and throw it in the trash and say, “Thank you but no thank you. Don’t do this again unless I ask you to.” Sununu and I got along for whatever reason….

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-intergovernmental-panel-climate-change

What I think we can learn from this

Behind most speeches/statements there’s an untold tale of fighting….

What happened next

Bush and his dogs kept on keeping on. In 1992 the Europeans blinked in a staring contest, and targets and timetables were removed from the draft of the text of the climate treaty…

Categories
Australia

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 5, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard got ridiculed on an ABC television programme.

Howard’s problem was that he had changed his policy but not his political strategy. He refused to genuflect before the icons: Al Gore’s scare, the drought as proof of a climate transformation, and Kyoto sanctification. For the ABC, Howard was now a figure of undisguised ridicule. His Lateline interview of 5 February 2007 began with this mocking question from Tony Jones: ‘Can you recall exactly when it was that you ceased being a climate change sceptic and became, in effect, a true believer?’

(Kelly, 2014:131)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Australian Prime Minister John Howard had a track record of 10 years of successful opposition to any action on climate, using all means fair and foul. He had finally been pushed because of an impending election into appointing one of his mandarins, in this case, Peter Shergold to examine an emissions trading scheme. Therefore journalists were beginning to have fun with Howard’s U-turn. Howard had to do the U-turn beacuse climate concern was being expertly used as a wedge issue by new opposition leader, Kevin Rudd.

What I think we can learn from this

Journalists who don’t really “get it” can still land blows. But the real problem is that the landing of these blows has an emotional release effect on viewers who think “ah, the system is working, the system is correcting, this bad person who I don’t agree with  will be gone soon”. They don’t then think about what they need to do for the long-term. It’s a kind of court jester catharsis thing.

What happened next

Howard was defeated. In the November 2007 election, Kevin Rudd came in with lots of promises, but no real action and poisoned the well, creating cynicism, which is still present.

References

Kelly, P. 2014. Triumph and Demise: The broken promise of a Labor generation. Melbourne University Press.

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

Categories
Australia

February 4, 1993 – Australian business versus the future (spoiler: business wins)

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 4 1993, Australian business interests continued their fight against the future of the human species.

The Federal Government’s ratification of an international climate change agreement last month is a chance for Australia to rewrite its greenhouse policies and perhaps even argue for a national increase in greenhouse gas emissions instead of a cut.

That’s according to Woodside Petroleum managing director Charles Allen, who told the Outlook conference yesterday it was time for a “reappraisal” of Australia’s greenhouse policies.

Mr Allen said “emotional media and political treatment” of the greenhouse issue had obscured the real problem. While it was clear greenhouse was happening, he said, there were many scientific uncertainties about its magnitude and speed.

He said Australia produced only about 1.5 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, even though per head of population emissions were on a par with major greenhouse producing nations. 

Mussared, D. 1993. Increase Australia’s greenhouse emissions: Woodside. Canberra Times, 5 February, p.13.

AND 

THE Federal Government would have to consider unpopular measures such as a carbon tax if wanted to achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2000, according to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

A senior ABARE minerals economist, Mr Barry Jones, told the Outlook ’93 conference yesterday that the measures announced in the Government’s Greenhouse Response Strategy would not be enough to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by 2000 compared with 1988 levels, or to cut them a further 20 per cent by 2005

Garran, R. 1993. Rethink needed on greenhouse The Australian Financial Review, 5 February, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Australian business interests were trying to claw back ground that had been lost, sort of, in 1992 when the Australian government had signed and ratified the UNFCCC. This was also taking place ahead of an impending federal election. The context was that the Hawke government had, in October 1990, agreed to the Toronto target (a 20% decrease in emissions by 2005) with caveats. Now business wanted to emphasize the costs and to point to the fact that other nations were not doing very much.

What I think we can learn from this

No battle is ever won. Your opponents will, if they have capacity – and business often does – try to undermine you, to clawback territory. This will not be big news usually, but they never sleep, they keep fighting. Often, therefore, they win. An analogy would be the fight against women’s reproductive rights and bodily autonomy in the United States. It took them decades, but they rolled back Roe v Wade…

What happened next

In Australia, there was a proposal for a carbon tax in 1994/95. It was defeated and then Australia switched to talking about an emissions trading scheme. There was prolonged debate about this finally in 2012. A scheme was introduced within a year, then abolished.

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

Categories
United Nations

February 4, 1963 – A UN conference on technology for “less developed areas” starts

Sixty years ago, on this day, February 4 1963,  a UN conference on technology for less developed areas, starts in Geneva

“United Nations Conference on the Application of Science and Technology for the Benefit of the Less Developed Areas”

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1485045?ln=en

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The United Nations was still regarded as a serious player, and “development” for the newly decolonized countries was a hot topic, whereas climate change caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide was most explicitly not. This was due to relatively easy to understand reasons – the idea of heating the world because of industrial gases was new (if you don’t count Arrhenius and Callendar), we just didn’t have good enough measurements. Meanwhile, cold winters were still very much a thing (and the cooling effect of dust and sulphur very much in play.)

What I think we can learn from this

We endlessly talk about what the world needs to be doing, but it takes longer than you think. We end up doing something different, usually less than we originally wanted. 

What happened next

The attempt to “develop” has industrialised the world, but largely in the interests of the super-rich and the rich, (which probably includes you and definitely includes me, looking at things globally).

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

Categories
United Kingdom

 February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Eight years ago, on this day, February 3, 2015, a workshop brought together industry types with government types to talk through how to accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions during the making of steel and glass etc.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was

The UK Government had started paying a little bit of attention to the need for not just power sector decarbonisation, but also decarbonisation of the industrial processes. In 2013 the Department for Energy and Climate Change and Business Innovation and Skills had launched a process of consultation for eight sectors.

This workshop was the culmination of those efforts. 

What happened next

In November 2015, George Osborne pulled the plug on CCS and then there was a process of reconstruction of the CCS image. For more about this and what happened next, see my blog on the Sussex Energy Group website “how carbon capture was brought back from the dead, and what happens next”

What I think we can learn from this

Decarbonizing industrial processes is incredibly complicated, there are many moving parts. Energy efficiency and material substitution will take you so far but, beyond that we need some carbon capture and storage. Building that infrastructure without more customers, i.e. power sector and greenhouse gas removals, is “difficult.”

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

References

Categories
Denial

 February 2, 1996 – denialist sprays #climate science with his bullshit

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 2, 1996, denialist idiot Fred Singer wrote to the journal Science…

“Then Fred Singer launched an attack. In a letter to Science on February 2, 1996, four months before formal release of the Working Group 1 Report, Singer presented a litany of complaints.”

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 205

and

In a letter to Science magazine (February 2, 1996) S. Fred Singer charged that the most recent IPCC assessment “presents selected facts and omits important information.”

Gelbspan, R. (1998)  Page 227

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The denialists – both those who were lying for money and those who were lying to themselves, also for money – were fighting a rearguard action against inconvenient reality. The second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report was being released. It said that there was already a discernible impact from human activities on the climate. This was anathema to the denialists, because it would then lead to pressure for real regulation. 

By now, of course, the Berlin mandate (agreed at COP1 in Berlin in 1995) was underway, meaning that rich nations were being compelled to negotiate an agreement on emissions cuts. 

What I think we can learn from this

In order to avoid outcomes they don’t like, denialists will attack scientists and smear them. This is more widely recognized now.. One form of these attacks is now known as the Serengeti Strategy, a term coined by Michael Mann, a climate scientist who would be attacked from 1998 for his “hockey stick”.

What happened next

The attacks on scientists continued and culminated in 2009, with the theft of emails from the UEA server. The selective release and cherry-picking of the emails were part of a largely successful effort to sow doubt and confusion in the minds of people who might otherwise have mattered, or who may have done things that mattered.

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

Categories
Australia

Australian films “The Coal Question” and “What to do about C02” – interview with Russell Porter

The Australian documentary maker Russell Porter kindly agreed to an interview about two of his films for the CSIRO, “the Coal Question” (1982) and “What to do about C02” (1984).

The short version (though you really would benefit from reading the whole thing) is this – we knew. We really did. Skilled communicators got hold of scientists who knew how to communicate.

The Coal Question: (watch here)

Can you remember, did Film Unit ‘pitch’ to energy institute’, or did the energy unit come knocking and say ‘we’d like you to do a film about coal’

1. The film project selection system worked in various ways. In some cases we would identify a subject that looked interesting and then discuss it with the relevant experts, and if it was broadcastable in theme and scope, we would talk perhaps to the ABC Science commissioning editors. In other cases, the Institutes (or Divisions as they became) within CSIRO would express interest in having a film made about their work, and my job would be to liaise with the scientists involved and prepare a script, which was then sent back in a few stages to be revised and refined. I was always keen to avoid them looking too “institutional” and boring. 

In this case I think the energy Institute expressed an interest in publicising their work, I developed the script and, once it was approved, it formed the basic blueprint for making the film. Shooting and post-production on 16 mm was expensive, so we used to aim for a ratio of about ten to one (of material shot to the final edited length), so pre-scripting was essential. (Ratios these days are often 50 or 100 to one – false economy because the saving by shooting on inexpensive digital video are lost in lengthy post-production, and the craft and quality elements that come from careful preparation also suffer.)

Where did your information re: climate come from (did you already know Graeme Pearman from, say, the 1980 climate conference he organised)

2. The film unit was located in the old Information and Media (or some such) Centre in Albert St East Melbourne. which also housed a large library full of journals and editorial departments for specialist publications. It also housed the very experimental computing research division (where they were trying out a kind of prototype internet/electronic data-base sharing system, in collaboration with Harvard and Oxford). I tried to keep on top of interesting-looking developments or program as they came through the internal bulletins and publications like New Scientist (which I still subscribe to). CSIRO was a big and highly respected organisation in those days, with over 7,000 very bright employees engaged in often pure and original science. The climate conference was before my time (I joined in 1982), but the subject was beginning to create some lively debates within the organization. 

 

Was there any attempt to control the script/content before it was released? 

3. I don’t remember there being any attempt to “control” the content,  but as I say they had to approve the final draft of the script. The heads of the Divisions and their scientists were the experts, and I deferred to them. But they were all also pretty smart characters with considerable social awareness and sense of responsibility. I loved the fact that they would not say or allow any opinions that were not based on hard empirical evidence. Proper old-school scientific rigour. With films for a general audience I used to say that if they could make me understand what they were doing, I could interpret that for the public. 

Was there any overt ‘push back’ from anyone (within coal industry, government CSIRO etc) after it was released? If so, from who, what kind of push back?

4. I can’t remember any negative reaction to the coal film – there may have been some, but it would have been at a level that didn’t reach me. The industry lobby groups were also fairly docile in those days, and the politicians were less obsessed  with pleasing their neo-liberal constituencies – that came later I think. I remember feeling that I had to be careful not to be promoting an industry that to me, even back then, I saw as environmentally destructive, so the  “balance” in it, regarding emissions etc, was at my instigation – and they went along with it.

Are there other, earlier films I should be aware of? Or films about renewable energy?

5.  In terms of other CSIRO films, if you go to the website http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/ you can search by subject,and it will then give you the option of images or videos. “Climate” + “videos” for example yields this: http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/search/?tags=&newkeyword=climate&keyword=&library=&assettype=video&rgb=&deviation=30&page=1 

I made “Mysteries of the Lleeuwin” which is mainly about oceanography rather than energy / climate issues per se, and “The Heat is On” (2001) was after my time, but seems to be one of the “Sci-Files” shorts, which replaced the old “Researchers” series which were originally screened as fillers on commercial TV. There is another two-minuter in the series called “Oil from Plants”. A search on the site for “solar” yields these:

http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/search/?tags=&newkeyword=solar+&keyword=&library=&assettype=video&rgb=&deviation=30&page=1 HIAF was the only one I worked on.

Anything else you’d like to say about the Coal Question

6. I think “The Coal Question”  was aired on the ABC Quantum programme, as was my film on Australian trees called “Green Envoys“, shot in Zimbabwe and Southern China in 1986, funded by the Fed government as part of the Australian contribution to the International Year of Peace. (1986)It was originally planned to make it about two CSIRO research projects in Africa, trees in Zimbabwe and dry land soil farming techniques in Kenya. I went over to research it in February, returned with the crew in June, shot the trees project and then discovered that the Kenyans had withdrawn our permission to film at the last minute. It was due to go to air in September so we had to frantically re-schedule and re-write, and decided to make it all about trees. We had to get the then Foreign Affair Minister (Bill Hayden) to fast-track permits and visas etc, and off we flew to remote areas of southern China (Guangxi and Leizhou).  http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/video/12230/green-envoys/

What to do About CO2? (watch here)

Where did the impetus for “What to do about C02?” come from?

1. “The Greenhouse effect” as it was known then, was certainly an emerging interest of mine, and I think the ABC also wanted to do something on it. Much of the research was coming out of Atmospheric Physics Division in Aspendale so I went there first and met Graeme Pearman and I think Barrie Pittock, They were both keen to spread the word, and very charismatic interview “talent” (unlike many scientists). 

You interviewed Bert Bolin – did he happen to be in Australia at the time?

2.Bert Bolin was in Australia at the time, I´m not sure why, but he was already internationally renowned for his work on climate change, so we took him to a Melbourne beach and interviewed him there. Similarly I heard that botanist and broadcaster David Bellamy was addressing a crowd at the Myer Music Bowl in Melbourne, we ran down there from the Unit´s base and grabbed him after the talk. He was quite a famous figure in those days for his arrest during protests against the damming of the Franklin River in Tasmania. He became an all-purpose environmental issue commentator, so  we got the interview opportunistically. He was discredited  (and banned  by the BBC a least) when he became a denier of anthropogenic climate change, calling it “poppycock”. https://www.azquotes.com/author/30827-David_Bellamy).

Was there any attempt to control script/content?

3 No I don´t think there was any attempt to control the content. CSIRO and its scientists were kind of national sacred cows in those days, a source of national pride. This was before the whittling away and push to commercialize and downsize the organisation. This was also before the age of the internet, so here was much less official manipulation of media and ideas. Fake news, and the rot of anti-science and anti-intellectualism that has since taken over Australia, at least in terms of the people in power, were still decades away.

Can you recall any effort to get a politician (e.g. Barry Jones) to talk in the show about carbon dioxide as a problem?

4. No we didn´t approach the sainted Barry Jones. The Film Unit was intended and I think mandated to be non-partisan politically, and the feeling was that our brief was to stick to scientists, but in retrospect he would have been good value. The choice of Jeff Watson as the presenter was made by the ABC I think. He had a lot of cred as the founder of Beyond 2000, and he was a good choice.

What was the response? Positive? Negative? Any attempt to ‘push back’ from anyone?

5. The response to the film was generally good, it got a few positive reviews in the press and was deemed suitable by the Education department to be distributed to high schools. My own kids saw it at school. The Unit never promoted the films we made much, apart from within CSIRO´s general educational outreach through magazines etc. I don´t recall any pushback, but I can imagine the outcry from the conservative heads-in-the-sand brigade if it was made today with government money. Bob Hawke and Keating were in government for most of the time I was there.

Anything else you’d like to say about the film?

6. Not much more to say about it, other than I have used it quite a bit when teaching documentary in the USA and elsewhere, usually to positive feedback. It is old fashioned didactic filmmaking in a way, which has almost disappeared in the current digital point and squirt observational/reality style filmmaking. I´m currently working at the Uni of Tasmania making a series of films/online courses about identifying, living with and managing dementia (via the Wicking centre). Some of my colleagues there have seen it, and one said it is the best film they have seen on climate change issues, despite being made over three decades ago. 

For more about the CSIRO’s Film Unit, see

Hughes, J. 2018. From cold war to hot planet: Australia’s CSIRO film unit. Studies in Documentary Film., Vol 12, no 1.