Month: November 2023

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

December 1, 2008 – Climate Change Committee fanboys carbon capture

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 1, 2008, the first report of the brand-spanking new “Committee on Climate Change” was released. It fanboys CCS.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Committee on Climate Change, which had been formally established by the Climate Change Act, but must have been appointing people, paying people, and generally being underway. This is its first report about reducing carbon emissions. And predictably enough since it’s the middle of the first competition on CCS there is a big fanboy section about carbon capture and storage. 

What I think we can learn from this is that CCS is very “logical” within our system, that there is mitigation deterrence to worry about, and that actual saving of carbon dioxide has not happened yet at any meaningful scale. And whether it will be remains to be seen. My money would be on “No”.

The Committee on Climate Change or the Climate Change Committee, as it wants to be called, has continued to produce really useful work ever since, though some (waves at Kevin Anderson) think it should have done much more holding-feet-to-the-fire…

What happened next

The CCS competition collapsed in 2011. Was replaced with another in 2012. It had the plug pulled in 2015. And here we are again.

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

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 30, 1998, two of the Seven Sisters join at the hip.

1998 – Exxon and Mobil sign a USD$73.7 billion agreement to merge, thus creating ExxonMobil, the world’s largest company

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Mobil had, by this time been doing “advertorials” and so on (see Herb Schmertz- https://marketingcraftsmanship.com/2013/07/05/the-herb-schmertz-era-when-public-relations-had-some-balls/

that the German provocateur and artist Hans Haacke had spoofed.

What I think we can learn from this is that Omnicorp is on the horizon, as per the Onion “Our Dumb Century”. These immensely powerful concentrated interests well, you can break them up and they recombine, recoalesce. It’s like that scene at the end of Terminator two (spoiler), where he’s been in the liquid nitrogen, they shoot him, he is destroyed. And then the pieces and Mercury start to come back together.

What happened next

Exxon continued to fund denialist groups (provoking the Royal Society into writing a public letter in 2006 telling them to knock it off), and is now getting sued for what it did to block action.

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

That Hans Haacke/Bourdieu book “Free Exchange”

https://raphaeldelamer.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/bourdieu-pierre-haacke-hans-free-exchange.pdf

Categories
Australia

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 29, 1988, Australian members of parliament have a grip and grin photo opportunity to show how much They Care about the greenhouse issue. See this from the Canberra Times.

Parliamentarians of all political persuasions were encouraged to test the Wets and the Dries yesterday. But in this case the Wets and Dries were more in the realm of science than politics.

The Wets and Dries Testing Unit forms part of a display on climatic change held at Parliament House by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and opened yesterday by the Minister for Science, Barry Jones.

The display covers climate change and greenhouse-effect research being carried out by the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian National University as well as the Commission for the Future.

Mr Jones encouraged his colleagues to take a hands-on approach to the equipment the better to understand Australia’s field work.

He said that if Australia were to deal effectively with potential problems resulting from the greenhouse effect it would have to work carefully with all international bodies. Australia should also work closely with neighbouring regions such as the Pacific Islands, which faced annihilation if nothing were done.”

Wednesday 30 November 1988 Canberra Times page 22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a few days after Bob Hawke had opened the Science Centre, here was his science Minister Barry Jones trying to get politicians from both Labor and Liberals and Nationals to have “hands-on experience” of climate change at an event in Canberra. In 1988 everyone was running around being concerned about climate (we called it ‘the Greenhouse Effect’ back then), or saying they were. 

What I think we can learn from this

This sort of photo op jamboree serves multiple purposes. You can tell when you organise these things who turns up and who doesn’t, who sends her apologies, who doesn’t bother how engaged they are. Those turning up will want to get their photo in the newspaper, so that they can say to concerned constituents or “Yes, I recently attended X.”

Journalists get cheap/reliable copy. Everyone’s a winner!

What happened next

 The follow-on to the Greenhouse Project didn’t get funded. And so a separate entity Greenhouse Action Australia had to be founded. Jones lost his ministerial seat in factional infighting in 1990. And these sorts of jamborees became less doable after 1990, because it’s old news and because Liberals decided that they didn’t really want to try to capture green votes having failed to do so in 1990. Back to the betrayal, myth, Dolchstoss etc.

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

November 28, 1976 – climate modelling workshop in USA

Forty seven years ago, on this day, November 28, 1976, another climate modelling workshop happens…

The first model of the atmosphere had been developed in 1976. However, models existing up to the mid-1970s remained rudimentary. The workshop was held at the offices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from 28 November to 3 December 1976

Paterson, M (1996) p. 26

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that computer models at this stage were very very rudimentary and expensive. There had been work in the 60s. There’s that paper, I think by Janet Nielsen about the Met Office.

Of course computer modelling had become popular and criticised because of the Limits to Growth report. But by 1976 everyone kind of agreed that the world was going to warm as per the Norwich meeting in 75. And therefore using computers to figure out how much warming by when seemed like a good idea. So there was a workshop at NOAA.

What I think we can learn from this

The mid-1970s was scientists getting hold of the science – via computers and thinking – and saying “uh-oh”

What happened next

Those who knew their arses from their elbows did their best, but the forces of complacency and idiocy (looking at ya, BJ Mason) won the crucial battle at the First World Climate Conference in February 1979. Then came Thatcher and then came Reagan, and another decade was lost  (not that we would have done anything other than piss THAT against the wall…)

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

November 27, 1956 – New York Times science writer who covered C02 build-up dies.

Sixty seven, on this day, November 27,1956 Waldemar Kaempffert, New York Times science writer dies.

A month earlier, on October 28, the Grey Lady had run this below.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Kaempfert had been a journalist for a long time, and he had done a couple of really good articles in the New York Times about industry warming the world. He was probably good mates with Gilbert Plass. He had written the NYT article about Gilbert Plass’s comments at the AGU in May 1953.

What I think we can learn from this

Smart people were switched on to the threat in the 1950s. It wasn’t rocket science.

What happened next

Walter Sullivan became the chief science writer at The New York Times. Sullivan was heavily involved in reporting on the International Geophysical Year and at that point became aware of the potential problem of climate change from carbon dioxide build-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.

Categories
Antarctica

November 27, 1969 – Canberra Times runs pollution article, mentions melting ice-caps

Fifty four years ago, on this day, November 27, 1969, the Canberra Times ran a piece about pollution….

Paul Backshall of London Reuters with Pollution: Gases in the Atmosphere article, reprinted in Canberra Times Thursday 27 November 1969, page 18 Check out Trove here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was writing articles about air pollution at this point. Someone in Reuters in London had written something of that ilk, and the Canberra Times had syndicated it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that newspapers are hungry beasts and will syndicate things, even if it doesn’t have much of local spin to it, especially if the issue is popular enough.

What happened next

The Canberra Times kept reporting. Everybody was aware of what was at stake. What didn’t happen was that we didn’t stop the party. And now, the hangover…

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 United Kingdom

November 26, 2008 – Climate Change Act becomes law

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 26, 2008, the UK Climate Change Act got royal assent.

The UK now had a Committee on Climate Change, carbon budgets and a reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Act_2008

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the issue of climate had been moving steadily up the political agenda (with climate and energy policy becoming entwined in the period 2000 to 2009). In 2000 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution had recommended a 60% emissions reduction target by 2050. As public agitation (Climate Camp, Campaign Against Climate Change, Transitions Towns etc) got going, the NGO Friends of the Earth led a civil society charge for a Climate Change Bill. Though they shared the credit with the broader “Stop Climate Chaos” coalition, it was really their victory. At this time there was bipartisan support for action, because opposition leader David Cameron had been using environmental issues to detoxify the Tory brand.

What I think we can learn from this

You can have all the bipartisanship you like. It won’t last, and unless you have social movements and civil society monitoring the promises and putting pressure on the decision makers to make it happen, ‘business as usual’ will re-assert itself.

What happened next

David Cameron became Prime Minister, thanks to the connivance of the Liberal Democrats. And then within a couple of years it was ‘cut the green crap’…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong?

Categories
Australia

November 26, 1998 – “National Greenhouse Strategy” (re)-launched

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 26, 1998, yet another “National Greenhouse Strategy” was launched in Australia. Utterly meaningless of course.

Robert Hill launches the National Greenhouse Strategy (just a ‘refresh’, basically – bureaucratic games…)

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F39006%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been the “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” dribbled out in December 1992, which was a lot of fine words stripped of all meaning after the defeat of the people in favour of sanity during the ecologically sustainable development process.

The Howard government, re-elected in October 1988 thought they needed to pretend that they’re doing something. The AGO has been launched, but the Renewable Energy Target was still being kicked down the road, down the road, down the road demoralising environmentalists and investors.

What I think we can learn from this

Just because it is said by a “serious” person doesn’t mean it ain’t kayfabe.

What happened next

The National Greenhouse Strategy went nowhere. Of course, it was always designed that way, and anyone who thought otherwise was either naive or cynical. And emissions 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
Australia

November 26, 2008 – pre-CPRS meeting (yawn)

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 26, 2008, a bunch of self-congratulators met for a mutual back-patting exercise about the wonderful wonderful (checks notes)… White Paper that was coming out. Warning; you will need a sick bag.

2008 Ahead of the release of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper this December, the Centre for Policy Development (CPD) thought there was a need to bring all sectors of the community together to hammer out their differences on climate change policy in an atmosphere of optimism and cooperation.

What better way to do this than through Common Ground?

Common Ground: the event series that brings together people from different worlds, opposing parties or conflicting interest groups and invites them to talk about what they have in common. The CPD’s third Common Ground was held on Wednesday 26 November 2008, with over 150 people joining us at beautiful Customs House in Circular Quay, Sydney to hear Bob Carr (former Premier NSW), Pru Goward (NSW Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Environment) and a panel of diverse voices representing business, religious and minor party perspectives on climate change.

http://cpd.org.au/2008/12/common-ground-on-climate-change/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the long-awaited white paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was going to be launched. And so former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr hosted a “Let’s all hold hands and say how wonderful Labor is” event beforehand. As you will know, from reading this, Bob Carr had been aware of climate change as an existential threat since 1971, along with a lot of other people in Australia. [link]

What I think we can learn from this is that people who don’t know better, are willing to be swept up in the frenzy in the “feel good” mutual masturbation, back-slapping circle-jerk whatever you want to call it. It was always going to end the way that it did. Because we have not got a democracy. We’ve got an anocracy. And we’ve got a bunch of huller technocrats who wouldn’t know ecological truth and ecological limits if it bit them on the arse. How do I know this? It is biting on the ass and they still don’t know.

What happened next

The CPRS was a catastrophe. The economist Ross Garnaut nailed it. Rudd failed to get the legislation through, then was too gutless to call a double dissolution election.

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 United Kingdom

November 25, 1993 – House of Commons briefing on carbon taxes

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 25, 1993, the UK House of Commons library did a briefing on a particular climate policy possibility – carbon taxes.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp93-106/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in 1989, at the beginning of the Greenhouse Effect wave of concern, the World Bank had said we need carbon taxes to reduce fossil fuel use and to use the money to subsidise the development of renewables. That had not been a goer in the UK. In 1993 there had been an attempt to justify an increase on VAT on energy bills as somehow a green measure written about this previously – it was a cynical attempt to poison the well, making it harder for proponents to get traction.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons library did what the House of Commons library does, it pulled together really useful data in a briefing that can be used by MPs, policy wonks, etc. God bless the House of Commons library basically. 

What I think we can learn from this

You should always stop there first. You shouldn’t take what they say as gospel of course, – you shouldn’t take what anyone says is gospel. They will miss stuff, they will misinterpret stuff, because they’re human. But on the whole really, really useful stuff.

What happened next

In 1995, Crispin Tickell and others tried to get environmental measures into the budget, but by this time John Major was a busted flush, facing rebellion within his party. And the whole thing went nowhere for several 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.