Categories
United Kingdom

May 25, 1990 – Thatcher opens Hadley Centre

Thirty three years ago, on this day, May 25, 1990, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher opened a UK climate research facility.

“The task of analysing global warming was vested in a group of 170 scientists. The group, chaired by the Met Office’s Dr Houghton, came under the umbrella of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). It published a 22-page ‘policymakers summary’ on May 25, the day on which Thatcher confirmed her belief in global warming and announced a British target for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.” This quote probably comes from here – Thomas, D. (1990) The cracks in the greenhouse theory: David Thomas analyses the scientific basis for global warming and finds that the truth is not as clear-cut as many pundits insist

Financial Times, 3 November

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UK state had been wanting to paint itself as a responsible global citizen on climate, perhaps to make up for the acid rain fiasco. And so money had been announced that the Met Office would create a Centre for the Study of global climate issues, there’d be a computer, etc, etc. And Margaret Thatcher two years into her fourth term was happy to open it, because she was still talking up her green credentials. 

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians really like to open things and especially sciency things because they get a real reflected halo. Further, scientific study is almost always a good way of being able to defer awkward decisions or cloak them in the justification, so that you don’t lose as much political capital. 

See also Bob Hawke just before the 1990 federal election. Everyone loves to hug a scientist until that scientist opens their mouth. 

What happened next

The Hadley Centre did what the Hadley Centre does. Thatcher was toast by the end of the year, shortly after – oh the irony – the Second World Climate Conference.

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
Agnotology Australia Denial

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

Twenty three years ago, on this day, May 24, 2000, a bunch of silly old white men who were arm’s-length useful to powerful old white men had a meeting.

“Dinosaur business group is an embarrassment”

Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace Australia

Media release – May 24, 2000

Australian environment groups have united in condemnation of a greenhouse meeting in Melbourne today, labelling it an embarrassment to Australia.

The meeting of the newly established “Lavoisier Group” is a move to discredit climate change science and bring together business groups in opposition to limiting greenhouse pollution.

These ‘climate sceptics’ fly in the face of the hundreds of global business players who gathered at the World Economic Forum’s Annual meeting in Davos this January. This business group resolved that climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world at the beginning of the century.

Speaking from the meeting today, Greenpeace Political Liaison Officer, Shane Rattenbury said; “This is an embarrassment for Australian industry. These people are five years behind the facts.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate denialists had, in Australia, been working to make sure that the Howard Government didn’t weaken in its opposition to Kyoto, and had succeeded in that. They wanted to pal around with each other under an official title. And so was born the Lavoisier Group. They had not been successful in getting any big corporates to sponsor them because they were a major reputational risk. By the mid 90s, Australian business had decided, with one or two very partial exceptions, that denying the science around climate change was simply not worth it. They would instead emphasise the costs to business via dodgy economic modelling from both within and beyond the Australian state.

What’s interesting here was that the launch of the Lavoisier Group did get the environmentalists outraged. This is an example of what has recently been called “owning the libs” at least in the United States.

What I think we can learn from this

Denialists are losers who ‘won’.

What happened next

Howard kept scuppering even the smallest and most inadequate responses to climate change, for another seven years.

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
Uncategorized

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Eleven years ago, on this day, May 23, 2012, there was an interesting paper published about “wicked problems” and super wicked problems.

2012 Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change published on 23 May 2012 

Most policy-relevant work on climate change in the social sciences either analyzes costs and benefits of particular policy options against important but often narrow sets of objectives or attempts to explain past successes or failures. We argue that an ‘‘applied forward reasoning’’ approach is better suited for social scientists seeking to address climate change, which we characterize as a ‘‘super wicked’’ problem comprising four key features: time is running out; those who cause the problem also seek to provide a solution; the central authority needed to address it is weak or non-existent; and, partly as a result, policy responses discount the future irrationally. These four features combine to create a policy-making ‘‘tragedy’’ where traditional analytical techniques are ill equipped to identify solutions, even when it is well recognized that actions must take place soon to avoid catastrophic future impacts.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.pdf?pdf=button

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that we have known about so-called wicked problems for 50 years. And the idea of super wicked problems has been around for thirty.

Climate change is a super wicked problem par excellence, and this was especially obvious in the aftermath of the Copenhagen fiasco, which had occurred in December 2009. And it was not at this point at all clear that the UNFCCC caravan could have its wheels put back on in any meaningful sense.

What I think we can learn from this

It’s super-wicked problems all the way down… We kept punching the tar baby, and now it’s all over but the dying.

What happened next

We didn’t even acknowledge that these are super-wicked problems, let alone take actions to roll with the punches…

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
Uncategorized

Build Back Biodiversity:  International Biodiversity Day

A guest post by John Patmore

Today, 22 May 2023, is International Biodiversity Day or ‘International Day of Biological Diversity’ to use UN’s phrasing. This year’s theme is ‘From Agreement to Action: Build Back Biodiversity

If you look on Social Media search for: #BuildBackBiodiversity

And also: #AgreementToAction #KMGBF,

Along with: #HarmonyWithNature #30by30 #ForNature #ActionDecade #post2020

What Happened?

The original Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was prepared and signed following the 1992 ‘Rio Earth Summit’*. Thirty years later it is worth reminding ourselves why the term ‘Biodiversity’ arose, and what it was meant to capture.

Angry Monkey

“The earth is black in front of the cliff, and no orchids grow.

 Creepers crawl in the brown mud by the path.

 Where did the birds of yesterday fly?

 To what other mountain did the animals go?

 Leopards and pythons dislike this ruined spot;

 Cranes and snakes avoid the desolation.

 My criminal thoughts of those days past

 Brought on the disaster of today.”

‘Monkey’  Wu Ch’ên-Ên  Penguin Classics 

Humanity likes to see itself as all-knowing. Technology will provide solutions. ‘We’ are clever enough to control our destiny through applied engineering backed up with enough money.

Over recent decades we have seen there are many examples of our desires for more, faster and easier results failing. Recent floods across England, Pakistan and Bangladesh to name a few have left people homeless. The hottest summer ever recorded last year in England along with forests burning in Europe and USA over this century indicate massive environmental change we need to prepare for if we can’t ‘solve’ Climate Change.

Biodiversity was never seen as an end in itself. With publication of the ‘UK Biodiversity Action Plan’ (HMSO 1994) I asked the naive question “What is the point of it?”; my question was deliberate as ‘Conservation’ had been going on in Britain for over a Century. 

Biodiversity and the ‘Action Plans’ which emerged fulfilled several functions; a key one being to monitor change in the natural world. Sustainable Development as the foundation of the ‘Rio Earth Summit’* had three interconnected lynch pins. ‘Environment’ being the one that biodiversity plans aimed to monitor. Put simply: ‘You only go extinct once’ and we are seeing that increasingly across the World. In Britain the Scottish Wildcat has vanished, common dormouse is no longer common, water voles are extinct across many former counties.  The various ‘Biodiversity Action Plans’ (BAP) specified a range of habitat actions and species targets to enhance UK biodiversity.  added 

While we started to catalogue changes in biodiversity in the 1990s and list the objectives needed to enhance it there was a lack of meaningful action or senior level commitment. Even the Government’s National  UKBAP website, the index to biodiversity objectives, now advertises a private company!

However, COP15 provides continuity with the original UN CBD. There is genuine love for nature and commitment to biodiversity at the more local community levels.  

Some may say “We cannot control nature”; this phrase is often used by climate-change sceptics too. Yet we have successfully increased global air and sea temperatures over the past fifty years at rates never measured previously! We have destroyed habitats around the globe, whether it is rainforests or coral reefs. We have built on, ploughed and polluted heathlands, meadows and freshwater rivers in this country. So yes, “We can control nature”.

Breaking your own toys

When a complex and functioning system stops working normally a frequent immature reaction is to over-react. An intellectually and emotionally simple primate will literally ‘break its own toys’ rather than appreciate and understand how they should work. It can also be termed ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). Having ‘broken’ the planet Earth it is clear that repair will require a focused action, agreed at a global scale. Most truly natural habitats have been destroyed and there has been over a century of damage to the area and connections between ‘Semi Natural Habitats’.

We have seen recent examples of emotionally simple ‘ODD’ reactions. Car fuel queues and anger over heating following Russian gas supply anxieties. We sheepishly recall fisticuff over toilet rolls –  Loo Roll Riots, of all things! This illustrates how we live in an interconnected world; or ‘Ecosystem’, as ecologists normally refer to this planet of natural, semi-natural habitats and species. 

Perhaps think of the global ecosystem as though it was your own body. You can lose teeth. You can lose a finger, or a toe. As each component of the ecosystem is lost the quality of life diminishes. Failing organs and hormone imbalance have a much larger impact than their physical size indicates; best to not overlook and ignore the diversity of creatures in our collective ecosystems! 

We are given indicators of ecosystem change, if we choose to see them. The zoonoses transfer of viruses from birds, bats and eventually larger mammals to humans led to the global pandemics of Covid19 and H5N1 (‘Bird Flu’ in Asia starting 2003).

Where next – Mars?

Following many centuries of species extinctions (Dodos were hunted to death!) and natural habitat loss it is time to reflect. Destruction of the Brazilian rainforest has been well documented, and still continues as cattle are farmed for a few short years to supply the ‘beefburger’ fast food trade. Borneo is one of the richest ecosystems in the world (= most biodiverse) and we see accelerating decline of its forests to be replaced by urban areas or palm oil plantations. In 1973 (fifty years ago) the large island of Borneo was almost completely dominated by tropical and sub-tropical rainforest. Now within two generations only a much reduced strip of rainforest now remains in the centre of Indonesian Kalimantan. 

We destroy the very health of planet Earth. At an egocentric level this will result in damage to our own human health. At an ecocentric level the very planet which has sustained life for over three billion years is being destroyed. Humanity is smart enough now to see this destruction. Mars is a long distance into the future. It makes far more sense to look after the only planet we know can support life.

Where next then?

Within Brighton and Hove’s Wildlife Forum (BHWF) we look to work with partner bodies to promote biodiversity and geodiversity. Everyone has a connection with nature. If you are keen to help improve nature conservation there are some basic first steps which will make a big big difference.

1. Set up a connection with others. This is the crucial ‘Agreement’ step which provides the foundation for action.

2. Confirm the current places with biodiversity and geodiversity features in your area. Google Maps is a super resource for this as you can plot polygons and single points on an internet map that everyone can see and share in improving.

3. Arrange to visit the Local Wildlife Sites (LWS = biodiversity and geodiversity) you have selected. They do not have formal protection so you can simply start by photographing and describing them.

4. As other people with a shared interest become focused on each particular LWS you can build up a list of habitats and species which depend on that site. Ideally you can monitor the size and health of your LWS areas.

5. Keep an eye on council forward plans, and also planning applications. You can identify threats to the LWS network. Given support from conservation groups you can actively prevent the loss and destruction of local biodiversity. 

And finally,

6. It’s not all trouble and strife! Once you have a LWS network on the live map, which people close by can see and know about, it’s time to expand. Look for opportunities to connect up the separate LWS areas, with ‘Wildlife Corridors’. This can be as small and personal as planting native species in a part of your garden adjacent to a neighbour also doing this. Allowing ‘Hedgehog Corridors’ to be created (see ‘Hedgehog Street Campaign’) 

7. Habitat Connectivity is often the most positive improvement that can be made by local groups and people. Finding the LWS network, protecting the areas and then enhancing their natural qualities to connect with nearby areas are the practical steps From Agreement to Action: …. to Build Back Biodiversity

John Patmore is an ecologist based in Brighton, England (Eco21st.com) He established BHWF ( BHWF.org.uk) with Martin Robinson over a decade ago. The Forum looks to promote biodiversity and geodiversity actions and policy across Brighton and Hove. 

* The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

May 21, 1998 – “Emissions Trading: Harnessing the Power of the Market”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, May 21, 1998, Australian politicians danced around the idea of “emissions trading.

Ladies and gentlemen.

I am pleased to be here with you today to share with you my assessment of the opportunities and far-reaching role that international emissions trading will play in the successful implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. International emissions trading provides the means of harnessing the power of the market to provide cost effective solutions to emission abatement.

Emissions Trading: Harnessing the Power of the Market

Address by the Hon Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the ABARE International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading, Sydney, 21 May 1998

http://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/1998/abare21may98.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this stage the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide – especially one way you could start trading trees, as New South Wales premier Bob Carr was keen to do – was the kind of market environmentalism that “rational” “capital L”  liberals might go for. It was therefore relatively painless for Alexander Downer to give a hedged speech in his capacity as Foreign Affairs Minister.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians like this stuff because it makes it look like they’re doing something when they absolutely are not.

What happened next

Well, an emissions trading scheme was put in front of the cabinet in 2000 and killed off by Senator Nick Minchin.. And then in 2003 the scheme got killed off by Howard. Meanwhile, the Sydney Futures Trading idea had been aborted by 1999.

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
Denial United Nations

May 20, 2010 – climategate keeps delivering for denialists

Thirteen years ago, on this day, May 20, 2010, a bunch of scientists had to waste more of their time answering questions about the theft of emails from a computer server.

2010 The scientists involved in the stolen climate emails from the University of East Anglia were exonerated by the British House of Commons and an international panel of climate experts, led by Lord Oxburgh. Even after these investigations found that nothing in the emails undercut the scientific evidence of climate change, attacks against scientists continue. Reports of harassment, death threats and legal challenges have created a hostile environment, making it challenging for actual data and scientific analyses to reach the public and policymakers.

On Thursday, May 20th, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing to examine the intersection between climate science and the political process. This hearing, entitled “Climate Science in the Political Arena,” featured prominent climate scientists, some of whom have been the target of these attacks. This hearing explored scientists’ ability to present data and information that can guide global warming solutions in a sometimes fierce political landscape.

WHAT: Climate Science in the Political Arena

WHEN: Thursday May 20, 2010, 9:00 AM

WHERE: 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC

OPENING STATEMENT: Chairman Edward J. Markey

WITNESSES:

Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council

Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego

Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University

Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton University

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 393.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 420 ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that shortly before the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, somebody broke into the University of East Anglia servers, downloaded an enormous tranche of communications between various scientists, and then released these as the so-called Climate gate emails, trying to insinuate that there was some scandal. There had been significant fallout. And these hearings were politicians trying to show that they were concerned and figuring out what hadn’t hadn’t happened.  By then, though, and this is the beauty of a smear, the work is actually done. A lie can be halfway around the world, but for the truth has got its boots on.

What I think we can learn from this

Smearing climate scientists is easy. Nobody is able to live their life without making slips that can be magnified, exaggerated truths distorted, etc. 

What happened next? The climategate emails still get trotted out by denialists as proof of the malfeasance of climate scientists and the “corruption” of the science. 

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
Economics of mitigation Uncategorized United States of America

May 20, 1960 – Spengler suggests decline of the … whole shebang

On this day american economist Joseph J. Spengler’s  Science article –  

“Illustrative also would be the covering of much land by water should continuing population growth so step up man’s production of carbon dioxide that the oceans failed to absorb all of it, with the result that the carbon dioxide content, and hence the temperature, of the atmosphere rose sufficiently to melt the polar ice caps.”

See here

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1705886

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319 check  ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by the late 1950s carbon dioxide build-ups existence and possible long term consequences was not confined to a tiny tiny minority. Anyone who read a newspaper, could understand exponential growth and 19th century could see that there might be some writing on the wall…

What I think we can learn from this

We knew enough to think about worrying.

What happened next?

No economist bothered to think about the problem until Nordhaus in the 1970s.

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
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from thedenialists. Sort of.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 19, 1997 BP’s boss backs away from denial

“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”

(Levy and Egan, 2003: 820) 

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.”

He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global Climate Coalition had been getting rougher and rougher on the climate science, especially around the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, and that had made some businesses nervous about the reputational risk. In the UK the new Blair Government probably wasn’t going to be terribly impressed by BP’s continued membership of the GC. There had already been defections. And so Browne, bless him, decided to put a very, very positive spin, in every sense, on the issue. 

What I think we can learn from this

Capitalism is not a monolith. The fossil fuel sector is not a monolith. The oil industry is not a monolith. But we also learn, surely, that just because they’re not monolithic – on politics and presentation – doesn’t mean their actual strategies diverge very much. 

What happened next

And BP is, as an article published in The Guardian on the day that I’ve narrated this, still, of course, spending much more on hydrocarbons than renewables, because they are not an energy company. They are a fossil fuel company. And if they have convinced you otherwise, best maybe to take another look. 

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
Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation United States of America

May 19, 1993 – President Clinton begins to lose the BTU battle…

Thirty years ago, on this day, May 19, 1993

Senator David Boren comes out against BTU tax, after Burson Marstellar astroturf campaign (see Agrawala and Andressen, 1999: 470)

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

The context was

There had been enormous – and ultimately successful – local lobbying efforts. Boren had been picked off, in a kind of Serengeti strategy thing, but in the political sphere rather than the scientific. And this really spells the end for Clinton’s BTU. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of climate action, smart, determined, strategic and well funded. These characteristics do not necessarily apply to the proponents of action, unfortunately. 

What happened next

Clinton had to kill the BTU energy tax. And that was basically it for Clinton and domestic climate action (imo). It also meant that the opponents of action really had good proof of concept, and presumably, the Australians were looking at this and saying, “that’s how it’s done.”

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
Denial

May 18, 2006-  Denialist nutjobs do denialist nutjobbery. Again.

Seventeen  years ago, on this day, May 18, 2006, American denialists tried to confuse the public, again.

Following the release of the film, An Inconvenient Truth, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a group funded in part by ExxonMobil, launches an advertisement campaign welcoming increased carbon dioxide pollution. “Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution, we call it life,” the ad says. [Competitive Enterprise Institute, 5/2006; New York Times, 9/21/2006]

May 18, 2006-May 28, 2006: Global Warming Skeptic Organization Launches Pro- Greenhouse Gas Advertising Campaign

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=CEIadverts200605#CEIadverts20060

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was coming out, and therefore the denialists wanted to be able to get journalists to quote “an opposing view” for what is laughably called “balance.” And so they reused their “greening Earth co2 is plant food” claim because it’s simple, and seems commonsensical. 

What I think we can learn from this

And this is part of the manipulation of the media that had already been identified by Boykoff and Boykoff in 2004 – “Balance as Bias”. This is a classic example of the way that cashed-up and well-connected entities can game the system. And of course, if their views aren’t quoted, people can then flak the journalist and say “classic liberal censorship,” “echo chamber,” et cetera. So it’s a win win. 

What happened next

The CEI kept doing this bullshit, without shame, without remorse, because that’s who these people 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.