Month: March 2023

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

Thirty  years ago, on this day, March 23, 1993, the UK government released its “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper

Main conclusions were:  

subsidy to be offered to bring extra tonnage down to world market prices, 

no pit to be closed without being offered to the private sector,  

no changes to the gas and nuclear sectors,  

increased investment in clean coal technology, 

regeneration package for mining areas increased to £200 million

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 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had defeated the miners’unions using the police, MI5, the media and so on. Coal mines were being closed, left and right. And mining communities were being torn apart. It was unclear what if any future coal had in the energy mix. And of course, by this time, greenhouse gas concerns were present. And so the white paper comes out in that backdrop and the hope is that there will be such a thing as “clean coal.” 

And by 1993 the IEA was organising symposia on clean coal and sequestration and set forth why we needed it (AOY links).

What I think we can learn from this

Technologies that are on the backfoot especially if they are long lasting, don’t go down without a fight as a real rearguard action. And Bruno Turnheim wrote an entire PhD thesis about this. 

What happened next

Coal continued to dwindle, looked like it might possibly make a comeback, and then didn’t.

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
Interviews

Interview with Alastair McIntosh about movements, burnout, community and much else

Alastair McIntosh, the Scottish writer and activist, kindly did an interview last month, the first for my “Groundhog Day or End of Days” project (see here).

You can (and in my opinion should!) read the transcript here, but here’s a few clips to whet your appetite.

And then I started to notice, you know, when I got involved with some CND type stuff, and so on, I noticed that every one of these campaigns would have a kind of half-life and it would rise very sharply and everybody would be saying, “Oh, this time we’re gonna do it. This time. We’re going to force the government’s hand, or whatever.. This is the big one. This is the breakthrough.”

And you know what? Kingdom never come. Not in that worldly sense of “thy kingdom come by” thy community come, thy opening up the way be done on earth as it is in heaven. Because it reaches a point of an apparent breakthrough and then it collapses.

So I learned that if I wasn’t going to become disillusioned whenever this happened, I had to anticipate it. And I frequently, my writing uses the metaphor of a surfer – that a surfer swims out and doesn’t waste time and energy grabbing every little wave that comes their way. The Surfer swims out. And I’ve never done it but I’ve watched my son doing it. And will maybe hang around for up to an hour, hoping for the perfect wave to come. And then surf in on the chosen wave.

and

marc hudson 45:27

You’ve kind of answered the question just there but I’ll ask it anyway. Besides burning out and selling out, then what other problems does this boom and bust cycle create?

Alastair McIntosh 45:43

It also creates false premises. So XR, have a big thing “Tell the truth.” But you’re not actually telling the truth when you’re misleading people as to how activism works. And I take XR as a presenting case, but it’s the case much more widely. It’s the case in politics. It’s all over this…

and

It leads to false hope. Which leads to the wrong kind of disillusionment. I say this because in my first book on climate change, Hell and High Water, that came out in 2008. I recommend what the Victorian Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers calls “The discipline of disillusionment.” Where he says we must become disillusioned. We must strip away our illusions of false hope in order to touch a deeper truth from which we can work realistically. So this is, what we’re talking about the activist world is not a disciplined disillusionment, it’s an indisciplined disillusionment that leaves people cast out as flotsam and jetsam on the beach. Sometimes quite psychologically damaged as you’re probably aware.

Categories
United States of America

March 22, 1960 – US Television warning of carbon dioxide build up, courtesy Athelstan Spilhaus…

Sixty three  years ago, on this day, March 22, 1960, viewers of a major US news channel were informed about carbon dioxide build-up and its implications.

“The Mysterious Deep” aired on March 22 and April 3, 1960, and is an important documentary for reasons beyond its music: First, it contains one of the earliest American television interviews with legendary explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau, whose UNDERSEA WORLD OF JACQUES COUSTEAU would later revolutionize TV’s approach to oceanography; and second, for its remarkably prescient view of climate change. Within its first five minutes, scientist Athelstan Spilhaus warns of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere that could eventually melt the polar ice caps.  https://buysoundtrax.myshopify.com/products/franz-waxman-the-documentaries-the-mysterious-deep-lenin-and-trotsk

“This documentary series hosted by Walter Cronkite,… examines outstanding events and personalities of the twentieth century. In this program, part one of two, Cronkite examines the mysteries of the ocean. Topics discussed include the following: penetrating the ocean surface; the aqualung, a self-contained breathing apparatus developed by oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau; the possibility that the ice caps will melt; the violence of the sea and scientists’ attempts to control the weather to stop violent hurricanes before they originate; how sea water is used to quench the thirsts of millions of people through irrigation systems that purify the water; the importance of seaweed harvesting in Japan; and how microphones are used to determine if sea creatures have a way of communicating. Includes a preview of part two.”

Details

  • NETWORK: CBS
  • DATE: March 27, 1960 Sunday 6:30 PM
  • RUNNING TIME: 0:26:15
  • COLOR/B&W: B&W

https://www.paleycenter.org/collection/item/?q=cbs&p=19&item=T79:0499

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 that the International Geophysical Year ended in 1958. And the questions of the weather in the natural world continued to be fascinating to everyone. And this was at the high tide of new technologies which could see further underwater so, Cousteau and so forth. 

What’s interesting about Spilhaus was that he worked for Roger Revelle in the 1930s. As I recall, I think he did a PhD. And he was also a cartoonist, and by 1958, he had started his famous world of tomorrow cartoons and in 1958. He had done one on the greenhouse effect in a 1958 cartoon here. 

This is one of the first examples of coverage of greenhouse gas emissions on the television  

What I think we can learn from this

We really have had loads of time to get used to the idea, haven’t we?

What happened next

Nothing effective on mitigation. Lots of emissions. Then consequences.

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
France

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

Two hundred and fifty five years ago, on this day, March 21, 1768, French scientist Joseph Fourier was born.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 280ishppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Why am I talking about some 18th 19th century French scientist? Because he is the one who’s credited with pointing out that if you look at how far the Earth sits from the sun, and how much heat hits us, and what the temperature of our planet is, then something is trapping a certain amount of the heat. 

Fourier was an interesting character you can read more about on his Wikipedia page, and also here.

What I think we can learn from this

We have to understand that the idea of a greenhouse effect, not the theory, or use of the term was not invented by Al Gore, Greta Thunberg. It is basic 19th century physics. It is not controversial. And anyone who wants to make it controversial, is clearly trying to sell you Sydney Harbour Bridge for whatever reason. 

What happened next

1n 1824 he first published on this stuff. Snuffed  in 1830.

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 Nations

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 20, 1987, the report that popularised “sustainable development”  was launched.

“Its targets were multilateralism and interdependence of nations in the search for a sustainable development path. The report sought to recapture the spirit of the Stockholm Conference which had introduced environmental concerns to the formal political development sphere. Our Common Future placed environmental issues firmly on the political agenda; it aimed to discuss the environment and development as one single issue.”

Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone had been wringing their hands about the “North-South” divide in the 1970s. The New International Economic Order did not materialise. Then in 1980, Willy Brandt, north south report had been produced to little apparent effect. And I don’t know a cynic might argue that the Brundtland process was set up by well-meaning technocrats in the North, under pressure from people in the South who genuinely wanted a different world, give them opportunities to hold hands and sing Kumbaya and talk about how much change was needed. The question of how this cat would be belled, less evident.

Through the Brundtland process, which culminated in the release of Our Common Future, there had of course been talk about climate, including in a meeting in Norway in 1985, which we will come back to. 

What I think we can learn from this 

We need to remember that the dreams of redemption and sustainability of sustainable development as Brundtland put it, have been around forever. It’s now called Net Zero. When Net Zero dies it’ll be called something else. And it’s interesting that net zero isn’t even about justice. It’s about technocracy. But that’s for another day.

What happened next

The big meeting that was scheduled to talk about the Brundtland report and its implications in 1992 kind of got dominated by the climate treaty negotiations. (Climate change burst onto the agenda, the public agenda in 1988. And then despite the best efforts of the Americans, by 1991 negotiations for a climate treaty, we’re underway.)

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 19, 1998, the Australian business press reported that industry might be okay with carbon trading…

A proposal to reduce greenhouse gases by trading emissions was greeted cautiously by industry yesterday, with some concern about whether the scheme was premature.

The proposal came in a report by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), which argues that a trading scheme could help Australia reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels set down in the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change agreed last December.

The report was given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment inquiry into trading in greenhouse gases.

Hordern, N. (1998) The Australian Financial Review 20th March

NB IMAGE BELOW IS WRONG – it was 1998

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, or was about to. But ratification was still a ways away (and never happened!). However, the idea of having national trading schemes that then linked up with each other was, again, not sorry for the pun “in the air.”, and tradable emissions quotas were going to somehow magically reduce emissions. Carbon tax was definitely off the table second defeat in 1995. So ABARE, under attack for the clunkiness and shonkiness of its MEGABARE model and the use to which it was put [LINK TO AOY POST), was trying to get in front and put a positive spin on what it was doing.

What I think we can learn from this

Organisations try to repair their reputation, to get more funding, to get invites to events, to get quoted in the media. All the bread and butter of green confucians and technocrats everywhere. That doesn’t mean that we have to take them seriously. But of course, if you are public in your disdain, other people equally deserving of the same disdain will get nervous that you might soon turn your attention to them. So the nakedness of the Emperor must only be whispered. 

What happened next

A proposal for a National Emissions Trading scheme went to Howard’s Cabinet in 2000. And it was successfully killed by Nick Minchin. And then there was another effort in 2003 that was only finally killed because John Howard consulted one or two of his handpicked business mates and then came back and said, “no, we’re not doing this.”

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 Weather modification

March 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

Sixty five years ago, on this day, March 18, 1958, a US military man explains that carbon dioxide build-up is a possible, accidental, form of weather modification. 

In a paper presented to Congress in 1958, retired navy captain Howard T. Orville enumerated the ways in which humans might intentionally or unintentionally alter the weather or climate. Coincidentally, one of his first points involved the unintentional warming of the earth through C02.

(Howe, 2014:26)

Orville quoted; Weather Modification Research hearings of House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 85th Congress, March 18-19 1958

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hppYLYOcv0oC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=%22Weather+Modification+Research%22+hearings+of+%22House+Committee+on+Interstate+and+Foreign+Commerce%22,+85th+Congress&source=bl&ots=VqvXQyKqmX&sig=ACfU3U1XS6habXqG_Mb_IsjsekztVTyLpg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK6tfEsMHrAhUPWsAKHZLpBU8Q6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Weather%20Modification%20Research%22%20hearings%20of%20%22House%20Committee%20on%20Interstate%20and%20Foreign%20Commerce%22%2C%2085th%20Congressorville&f=false

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315.7ppm (this was the first month we have C02 measurements from Mauna Loa!). As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at this point, the idea of intentional weather modification, think using hurricanes to smash your opponents, crops and fleets, was still a thing (This was the late 1950s when we were properly drunk on hubris). And so Captain Orville’s testimony came, it was not the first time he had spoken on this. And came three months after the New York Times had done a detailed report about this, that included concern about carbon dioxide buildup, and Orville himself talked about co2 buildup as inadvertent weather modification (link Jan 1 1958 article).

What I think we can learn from this

Sometimes or in fact, all the time, you don’t hit what you aim for, that the knowledge that is later useful comes almost by accident. And again, in the 1950s American politicians were indeed being warned about carbon dioxide, and had been for several years by then.

What happened next

The weather modification, beyond some very local effects in Vietnam (Operation Popeye), was a washout, despite what the chemtrailers would have you believe.

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 Kingdom

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, March 17, 1976, John Mason gave a lecture at the Royal Meteorological Society…

The few mentions of climate prediction at the [Met] Office in the early to mid-1970s came from Mason—and they brought out the hesitant side of a man who was otherwise an aficionado of numerical modeling. “‘For the immediate future priority should probably be given to the use of models to test the sensitivity of the atmosphere’s response to changes in individual parameters, to elucidate the underlying physical mechanisms, and to distinguish likely changes in atmospheric behaviour from the idiosyncrasies of particular models,’’ he told the Royal Meteorological Society in 1976.

2 B. J. Mason, ‘‘Towards the Understanding and Prediction of Climatic Variations: Symons Memorial Lecture, 17 March 1976,’’ Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 102 (1976), 497  

‘‘Although I think that the likelihood of major and potentially catastrophic changes in climate has been grossly exaggerated,’’ he said at a Royal Meteorological Society lecture in 1976, ‘‘the subject is of sufficient potential importance and concern to merit a sustained research programme aimed at determining past and current trends more reliably and at improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms.’

Martin-Nielson – computers article – 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists were beginning to really look at carbon dioxide closely. Wally Broecker had published his “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?.” in Science.  (see All Our Yesterdays here on that). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.189.4201.460

The National Academy of Science had a two year study underway. Mason would have been well aware of this. And there was pressure on him as the Met Office Supremo to engage. He found the whole thing distasteful and called it another hoax, basically, possibly influenced by John Maddox, editor of Nature;  I’m sure the two were mates.

Oh, by this time, Stephen Schneider had published the Genesis Strategy and so forth.

Senior civil servant Crispin Tickell was back from his sabbatical year studying at Harvard, and  was banging the drum too.

What I think we can learn from this is that the personal views of powerful people matter, because powerful people, by definition, are gatekeepers about what is and is not “important.” And unless you can create some sort of anarcho-syndicalist utopia, that will continue to be the case. And even if you do, they’re always going to be experts of expertise and bottlenecks. And here we are, (See Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed where even in an ‘anarchist utopia’ there are all sorts of status games and so on).

What happened next  Mason was forced to create or to participate in an interdepartmental committee in October 1978, and make the right noises to people of influence who were more concerned than him about climate (see AOY Feb 7 or so).

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
Interviews

Interview with @AkanKwaku about environment, race and what is to be done

The latest All Our Yesterdays interview, with Leon/@AkanKwaku, who definitely deserves a follow from you. Here’s his profile pick and his Twitter banner is to die for (see foot of this post!)

1) Who are you (where born, where grew up) and when did you start thinking “hmm environmental problems are here and getting worse” 

My name is Leon, born and raised in Birmingham minus the accent, in a place called Handsworth. I first started thinking about environmental problems when I was quite young, probable aged 8-9. I think for me it started when I moved to Sweden back in 2007, children are taught from an early age about the importance of the environment, recycling is seen as a resource not rubbish.

2) Obviously environmental problems do not exist in isolation – how do you think they tie with other questions – inequality and, especially, racial injustice and oppression?  What are some of your favourite thinkers and doers on these questions?

Everything is linked if you look at the parts of the earth which are left in a deliberate underdeveloped state. These are often countries which has majority black and brown populations, they are resource rich, western companies and governments have not interest in helping these countries to become modern, this will then increase the costs they now access the resources they want. 

3) If you could have the undivided attention of everyone who says they are concerned about climate change, for just a couple  of minutes, what would you say?

Discussions around regulating the media, make them accountable. 

Make politicians accountable

Reform police and discuss ending the friendly relationship between them and politicians.

I would discuss the dismantling and reforming the political, economic and legislative landscape

4) What are, in your opinion, the biggest barriers to closer and better collaboration between people of good will who are coming from different places (race, class, gender, able-bodied status, age – you choose which)? Can you point to good work being done to bridge these barriers that deserves a shout-out and could be replicated/enlarged?

Education alone isn’t enough, we need to rid ourselves and private schools, fund all schools adequately, training and skill based jobs and ensure people from disadvantaged backgrounds get an opportunity to access some of the best positions in society

5) What next for you?

I have built a 15k following on Twitter by calling out this government’s hypocrisy, maybe a video blog, podcast?

6) Anything else you’d like to say.

We need serious change, we need people who not scared to speak the truth.

And that Twitter banner –

Categories
Uncategorized

 March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

Fifty years ago, on this day, March 16, 1973, The  Conservation Society released  report about North Sea Oil and how the gains could and should be spread around

The Guardian 16 March 1973, page 8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

There was lots of North Sea oil coming at us. (See also Doctor Who and the Terror of the Zygons.) And the question of how these riches would be invested and distributed and spent was very real. 

Reading about that Conservation Society report with the benefit of 50 years of hindsight, and in the context of the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre effort is freaking hilarious.

And of course, the workers doing the hard graft on off-shore wind are… getting screwed. See this recent report in The Ecologist.

What I think we can learn from this

That there were smart people talking about a “just transition”, and lobbying MPs etc, fifty years ago.

What happened next

North Sea oil revenues were used by Thatcher to cover up the economic catastrophe that she was causing, paying unemployment benefits and sick benefits, rather than creating a sovereign wealth fund, as the Norwegians have done; I’m not saying Norway is perfect by the way.  And some people got very very rich indeed.

Thank goodness we’re no longer trying to get the last dregs of hydrocarbons out, during a climate emergency, because that would reveal us to be pathetic hairless apes with opposable thumbs and a two millimetre sheet of neurons that didn’t make us quite as smart as we thought…

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..