Month: March 2023

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

John Howard sucks up to George Bush on climate wrecking – April 1, 2001

2001 On 1 April 2001 Prime Minister Howard wrote to President Bush and supported the United States’ position. He stated:

“I have long shared your view, and Australia has consistently argued, that a workable international framework to address climate change needs to be economically manageable and include developing countries, whose emissions will exceed those of OECD countries within this decade.

“In my view an effective global framework to address climate change needs to include commitments from all major emitters; unrestricted market-based mechanisms, including emissions trading; an approach to carbon sinks that captures both economic and environmental opportunities; a facilitative, rather than punitive, compliance system; and assistance for the most vulnerable countries to adapt to climate change.

“This will require that we engage developing countries, and seek firm commitments from them on future annual emissions. We will also need to encourage the European Union to re-think its opposition to market mechanisms and sinks, key issues for a cost-effective response to climate change.”

Letter from Prime Minister John Howard to United States President George W. Bush, see http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Howardletter.html [dead link]

Cited in NSW Parliamentary Library publiication 2002 – The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change: An Update By Stewart Smith

Clennell, A. 2001. Lead The World On Greenhouse Treaty, PM Urges Bush. Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April. p.2.

Hill revealed letter’s existence on 15 April. Greens Senator Bob Brown said yesterday the letter was mostly a public relations exercise for “domestic consumption”.

The context was

Bush had pulled out of Kyoto (despite campaign promises to regulate carbon dioxide) and this  was music to little Johnnie’s ears.

What I think we can learn from this

Those in power at the time were cretins. Thank goodness we know have giants in charge…

What happened next

Lots of technobabble and false promises. And climbing 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 Business Responses United Kingdom

March 31, 1998 – two business-friendly climate events in UK and Australia

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 31, 1998, there were two climate events on opposite sides of the world about just how business was going to save us all.

In the UK there was the launch of the Marshall Report

Climate change : a strategic issue for business : report presented to the Prime Minister, 31 March 1998 / Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

In Australia there was  “Greenhouse Beyond Kyoto: Issues, Opportunities and Challenges” Bureau of Resource Sciences, 31 March – 1st April 1998

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367.ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

There are two events on either side of the planet worth mentioning in the same blog post. 

The first is the release of a Blair government-era report. Treasurer Gordon Brown had commissioned Bob Marshall to talk to fellow business people about climate and climate policy. This process had been dominated, of course, by BP. Early proposals for carbon pricing had been minimised – more “death of a thousand cuts” until eventually you end up merely with a levy that is easily gamed and supplies ideological cover without driving any change. 

On the other side of the planet, you have the beginning of a three day conference about Kyoto and beyond in Australia. And there’s a similar dynamic really, if we think about it. Business is hoping to shape and minimise what is happening and the government in Australia is more nakedly on their side than it In the UK, partly because Australia is a quarry with the state attached. And partly because Prime Minister John Howard is such a prick. 

What I think we can learn from this

Business never sleeps, it is always in the words of Adam Smith, him what wrote the Wealth of Nations ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices‘.

What happened next

UK climate policy staggered on. Between 2003 and 2009 Climate and Energy Policy were kind of knitted together for various reasons and have stayed entangled. In Australia, they haven’t been entangled nearly as well, imho. There has been enormous tumult and heat, but not much light for various reasons. 

And the emissions have kept climbing….

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
biodiversity United Nations

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, March 30, 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment  findings  publicly launched at press conferences and seminars in London, Tokyo, Beijing, Delhi, Cairo, Paris, Nairobi, Washington DC, Brasilia, Sao Paulo, Stockholm, Rome and Lisbon.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assessed the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being. From 2001 to 2005, the MA involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide. Their findings provide a state-of-the-art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide, as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve and use them sustainably.

https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that biodiversity is often the poor cousin, the Cinderella, compared to climate. A cynic would argue that who really cares about charismatic megafauna and non charismatic megafauna. We can just eat Soylent Green, whereas if the climate goes chaotic, then it might affect rich people. 

What I think we can learn from this 

We need to remember that there is a shifting baseline. We need to remember that we keep making these promises about changing our ways that mysteriously we never quite do

What happened next

The sixth great extinction has continued, accelerated. My money is on it continuing to accelerate.

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
Science Sea level rise United States of America

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

On this day, 40 years ago, a conference on sea level rise took place in Washington, D.C

“In March 1983, many of this book’s findings were presented to a conference of over 150 scientists, engineers, and federal, state, and local policy makers. Although those attending agreed that sea level rise, if substantiated, would justify the attention of policy makers at all levels, some doubted whether anything less than a catastrophe could motivate people to undertake the necessary actions.”

Titus and Barth, 1983

http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_chapter1.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343.ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context

Scientists, by the late 1970s, were pretty sure what was coming. Questions about how much, how soon, but pretty sure.

What we can learn from this

That we are smart enough to create the machines that cause – as a by-product of their functioning- these problems. We are smart enough to detect them. We are not smart enough to do anything about our smartness.

What happened next

The seas rose

References: 

http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_chapter1.pdf

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

March 29, 1993 – C02 Disposal symposium takes place in Oxford

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 29, 1993, the International Energy Agency (lEA) held a  Carbon Dioxide Disposal Symposium in Oxford

https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-019689049390012Y/first-page-pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that coal was clearly going to continue to be burned. So how to do it cleaner? What are the options? Is sequestration in the deep oceans possible? Can you improve the gasification? There had also two years previously been a big event sponsored by the Australian Coal Association in Sydney. 

What I think we can learn from this

They’ve been banging on about clean coal for donkey’s years.

Rearguard actions by dinosaur technologies can “work”

What happened next

Technologies were proposed. They were rapidly prototyped, the business models sorted, the regulatory issues sorted. The technologies then shared and everyone in the world started burning coal cleanly. And we all lived happily ever after.  Except for the mining accidents, and the mercury, and all the rest of it…

And then I woke up…

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

Tilley, J. 1993. IEA carbon dioxide disposal symposium Oxford, United Kingdom 29th–31st March 1993 IEA Perspectives on global climate change issues.  Energy Conversion and Management Volume 34, Issues 9–11, September–November 1993, Pages 711-718

Categories
Denial United States of America

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

Six years ago, on this day, March 28, 2017, PBSs report on the denialist Heartland Institute spamming science teachers with ludicrous “NIPPC” nonsense.

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

“Twenty-five thousand science teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast said in an interview last week. If so, the campaign would reach more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers.”

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 407.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the culture war never ends. The Heartland Institute had suffered reverses because of its attempt to smear environmentalists with the Unabomber; it was all considered a bit much (see May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face). And so low profile stuff, like sending science teachers loads of crap was more likely to keep them afloat and feeling important.

What I think we can learn from this

As per the blog post about the school student, and the textbooks, which we come to in April, controlling what children are able to learn about climate change the way it is framed is a major goal of denialists organisations. And unfortunately, they have been very successful in this. Here we are 35 years into public knowledge of a climate emergency and most people are not taught or are mis-taught this stuff as they grow up. And then that sets the anchoring for them (see the anchoring heuristic). 

What happened next

Heartland has kept going on this stuff I think and most textbooks are crap on this as per December 22 2022 report.

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
Activism United Kingdom

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, March 27, 1966, a letter by Douglas McEwan launching the Conservation Society appears in the Observer newspaper.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a previous letter by a woman called Edith Freeman. Freeman had led to the creation of the Conservation Society in the context of enormous concerns about air quality species loss, both within the UK and internationally increased population. There were a series of books such as Silent Spring, but also UK books

You also had the rise of the motorway, the increase in concerns about air, water and noise pollution… So a Conservation Society to tackle these issues and to offer advice to civil servants and politicians seemed like a good idea at the time. 

What I think we can learn from this

We need to understand that groups come and go suiting an ideological setting

There’s a comparison with Amnesty which is still going. It also started from I think, an article about Portugal and torture and then a letter saying “something should be done.”

What happened next

The Torrey Canyon incident of 1967 proved the Conservation Society’s point. The Conservation Society’s high watermark period was really 1968 to 1971. But then, new groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were formed that were slightly more radical and sexier. And the Conservation Society continued for another 20 years until 1987 and was then wound up, its message about “population explosion” no longer on the money. In the meantime, it produced a lot of useful reports which are still achingly relevant, and some of which have been covered on this site.

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
UNFCCC United Kingdom United Nations

March 26, 1993 – UK government to ratify climate treaty

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 26, 1993, there was a  House of Commons debate  In reply to a question on the subject, the Government confirmed that they would be ratifying the UNFCCC.- 

“At this week’s [EC] Environment Council [22-23 March 1993] all member states agreed to take the measures necessary to enable them to ratify the convention not later than the end of 1993. This matches the UK’s earlier commitment, along with our Group Seven partners, to ratify the convention by the end of 1993.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1992, nations had come together and held hands in Rio, and signed a massively watered down treaty. John Major had offered to host the follow up to Rio because at this point, it wasn’t clear that the treaty would receive enough ratifications quickly enough to start holding its official meetings. So the UK still wanted to be seen as a leader on international climate policy. 

What I think we can learn from this

Sometimes things happen quicker than people think (like UNFCCC ratification)

What happened next

The Global Forum in Manchester, which was a serious egg-on-face for the Labour Council…

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

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Ten years ago, on this day, March 25, 2013, the Australian federal government killed off the Department of Climate Change, now that the “carbon tax” (actually a carbon price) was in situ, and the whole issue was unbelievably toxified.

Department of Climate Change is disbanded:

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is abolished. Most of its functions are moved to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, with responsibility for energy efficiency transferred to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The context was that the Gillard government had expended enormous amounts of capital and had sustained, enormous reputational damage to push through a carbon price mechanism. That one that, if Kevin Rudd hadn’t been useless, would have happened on his watch. The Gillard government was by this time, intensely allergic to climate issues, understandably so. Disbanding the department wasn’t going to send a signal to anyone about anything, though it probably was a bad move, because the expertise is then scattered. But then the people were probably already shattered. Morale is always an issue for civil servants trying to construct decent policy while an idiotic culture war happens around them.

What I think we can learn from this

As an historian or political historian, it’s always interesting to see when, why Departments of State are created combined or abolished and whether the commentary and expectations at the time turn out to be accurate. So the best example I can think of is that in 2016, the assumption that the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK was going to be absorbed into the business department. Environmentalists were understandably fearful that climate would be subsumed within energy, and would be off the agenda. And that wasn’t the case. That’s not to say that BEIS has played a blinder every single day.

What happened next

Gillard got toppled by Rudd, who then lost the election to Tony Abbott, who was a wrecking ball. The emissions trading scheme was abolished, the earth salted. And 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
United States of America

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil.

Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 24, 2010, another depressing article appeared in Nature. Why do they never print positive stories, eh?

Even soil feels the heat 

Twenty years of field studies reveal that as the Earth has gotten warmer, plants and microbes in the soil have given off more carbon dioxide. So-called soil respiration has increased about one-tenth of 1 percent per year since 1989, according to an analysis of past studies in today’s issue of Nature.

The scientists also calculated the total amount of carbon dioxide flowing from soils, which is about 10 -15 percent higher than previous measurements. That number — about 98 petagrams of carbon a year (or 98 billion metric tons) — will help scientists build a better overall model of how carbon in its many forms cycles throughout the Earth. Understanding soil respiration is central to understanding how the global carbon cycle affects climate.

https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=786

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this part of the ongoing work, scientific work in biological systems, is pointing out that the impacts of climate change are on the whole going to come faster and harder than we previously thought. Not always but usually.

Biologists had been looking at climate change and going “hmm” since the mid 1950s (see the great G. Evelyn Hutchinson).

What I think we can learn from this

We need to remember that there is the risk as James Hansen puts it of being too reticent, as per his May 2007 thoughts (link here).

What happened next

We kept running the big experiment. And the results are coming in.

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..