Month: November 2023

Categories
United States of America

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

Ten years ago, on this day, November 14, 2013, one of the two senators for Rhode Island, gives his 50th consecutive weekly speech about climate change.

2013 Sheldon Whitehouse and his weekly climate speech http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/time-to-wake-up-weekly-climate-speech

but then, “On November 14, 2013, he gave his 50th weekly Senate speech on climate change. The series of speeches highlight the science of climate change and offer paths for the United States to take strong action.”

(from wikipedia)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had been talking about climate every week. And the broader context is that the United Nations process was slowly grinding back into momentum. In the US, Obama had only tried anything substantive in his first term. And here we are. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there are elected politicians who get it and are willing to do the hard work of alerting people.

What happened next

Whitehouse kept going. He thought he’d quit at 279 speeches, but nope…

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/in-the-news/this-senator-thought-he-had-given-his-279th-and-final-speech-on-climate-change-he-was-wrong

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

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

Forty seven years ago, on this day, November 13, 1975, scientists were busy trying to inform politicians of the coming threats.

Concerning possible effects of air pollution on climate

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment and the Atmosphere of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives,  13-14 November 1975 

And got turned into an article in the Bulletin of the AMS.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by 1975 scientists who studied this stuff were getting more and more alarmed about the build up of CO2. The best way of demonstrating this is the Wally Broecker paper “are we on the cusp of a pronounced global warming.” But it’s one thing for something to appear in a scientific journal like Science, it’s another for politicians to hear it. Of course, US politicians had been hearing this stuff for years, a long time. 20 years really going back to Roger Revelle in the lead-up to the International Geophysical Year

What’s different here is there’s more certainty, more science, and the build-up of co2 has continued. 

What I think we can learn from this

It takes a very very long time for a new idea/problem to become an issue. There is enormous inertia in people’s heads, in our (political) cultures.

What happened next

An attempt to get legislation through failed.  There was soon a second push for a climate act with George Brown and others. It worked.

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

November 13, 1963 –  Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

On this day, 60 years ago, November 13, 1963, the peace campaigner, journalist and science communicator (including as first editor of New Scientist)  Ritchie Calder gave a clear warning about the build-up of carbon dioxide, at a meeting of the Town and Country Planning Association  in London.

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 Ritchie-Calder had been aware of the issue – at the latest – by early 1954, when he wrote about the issue for a national newspaper. By 1963, the first meeting entirely devoted to carbon dioxide build-up had already taken place in Washington DC. Calder was almost certainly aware of this…

What we can learn.  

We knew. We knew. We knew.

What happened next

Five years and two weeks later, Ritchie-Calder again referenced carbon dioxide build-up, in his “Hell on Earth” Presidential Address to the Conservation Society.

Seriously, long before Stockholm, long before Thatcher, we knew…

Categories
Australia

November 12, 2012 – Greenpeace smeared by Queensland extractors, of course

Eleven years ago, on this day, November 12, 2012, the Queensland Resources Council got their retaliation in first…

Greenpeace hysteria threatens communities

Nov 12 2012

An internationally-funded campaign to shut down Queensland’s export coal industry was relying on exaggeration and misrepresentation in a bid to undermine regional communities, the Queensland Resources Council (QRC) told a conference in Brisbane today.

https://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=3185

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Queensland Resources Council members knew that there was lots of money to be made in digging up and exporting stuff. And they didn’t like Greenpeace getting between them and their profits. And rather than argue the facts or talk about what the economy of the 21st century would need to be they decided – inevitably – to smear Greenpeace and use the lovely code word “hysterical,” which is always very gendered. Men don’t get called hysterical or possibly only homosexual men. And what they’re trying to do here is say that extractivism is man’s work. 

What I think we can learn from this

The gender aspect of this stuff (framing opponents as ‘hysterical) is worth considering (Cara Daggett etc).

What happened next

The attacks on environmentalists continued and escalated. Even WWF was in the firing line soon enough. And of course, the Queensland Government sat there and facilitated evermore mining. Of course it did. 

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

Spot the difference – Penny Wong and Scott Morrison

(as per Private Eye letters page ritual)

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

November 11, 1963 – “Is man upsetting the weather?”

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 11, 1963, the magazine US News and World Report runs a story on weather and climate.

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 through the 1950s concern about weather and weather change has grown. The US had started seriously spending money on weather modification experiments..

In 1963, in March in New York, the Conservation Foundation had held a one day meeting about carbon dioxide build up and its possible consequences. So the changes in the atmosphere, the weather, these were all grist for journalists ’mill. And you could quickly cobble together a new story based on old clippings, and maybe phoning up a couple of scientists who would be happy to be quoted, because as long as you’ve got the quote right, it would make them feel important. And keep their names in the papers. Universities would be mostly happy about this. And so the weekly ravening beast that was US News and World Report continued to be fed. Am I too cynical?

What I think we can learn from this

To really understand an individual document, you have to understand the social and political context of when it was written. This is a banal statement, but one that periodically needs repeating.

What happened next

The stories kept coming. By the late 60s carbon dioxide got named a lot more. But everything still got framed around. “We don’t know what will happen because maybe dust.” That didn’t begin to change until the late 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
Uncategorized

November 10, 1995 – Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni executed

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 10, 1995, nine men, including the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa were executed.

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

The context was that Nigeria was a brutal dictatorship with local warlords making loads a money. Ogoni were getting screwed.

The military dictatorship in Nigeria had decided to execute a bunch of Ogoni leaders who were protesting against the despoilation and the extractivism that had been going on for decades as funded by what has perpetrated by outfits like our friends at Shell who were having a rough time of it in the second half of the 1990s. 

What I think we can learn from this

That the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

What happened next

Nigeria stopped being an official actual military dictatorship. The shituation for the Ogoni is not hugely better.

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

  • Canadian author J. Timothy Hunt‘s The Politics of Bones (September 2005), published shortly before the 10th anniversary of Saro-Wiwa’s execution, documented the flight of Saro-Wiwa’s brother Owens Wiwa, after his brother’s execution and his own imminent arrest, to London and then on to Canada, where he is now a citizen and continues his brother’s fight on behalf of the Ogoni people. Moreover, it is also the story of Owens’ personal battle against the Nigerian government to locate his brother’s remains after they were buried in an unmarked mass-grave.[93]
  • Ogoni’s Agonies: Ken Saro Wiwa and the Crisis in Nigeria (1998), edited by Abdul Rasheed Naʾallah, provides more information on the struggles of the Ogoni people[94]
  • Onookome Okome’s book, Before I Am Hanged: Ken Saro-Wiwa—Literature, Politics, and Dissent (1999)[95] is a collection of essays about Wiwa
  • In the Shadow of a Saint: A Son’s Journey to Understanding His Father’s Legacy (2000), was written by his son Ken Wiwa.
  • Saro-Wiwa’s own diary, A Month and a Day: A Detention Diary, was published in January 1995, two months after his execution.
  • In Looking for Transwonderland – Travels in Nigeria, his daughter Noo Saro-Wiwa tells the story of her return to Nigeria years after her father’s murder.
Categories
Denial Germany

November 10, 1995 – moronic “Leipzig Declaration” by moronic denialists

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 10, 1995, idiot denialists do idiocy in Leipzig

1995 Nov. 9-10, 1995

Leipzig Declaration International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany and follow up on on Nov. 10-11, 1997.

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

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.phptitle=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change

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

The context was that the denialists had been in full throat since 1989. In Leipzig, a bunch of denialists were making one of their periodic idiotic declarations that they don’t believe in 19th century physics.

And because it contains doctors and professors and maybe even a couple of Nobel Prize winners in different fields, it’s gonna get some media attention. It’s gonna get quoted in various Parliaments and so it came to pass. It’s a tactic that they use to try and puff themselves up, to pretend that they have some credibility. It sounds scientific, it sounds responsible and adult. But it’s actually just the petulant musings of a bunch of damaged boys (and it is mostly boys) who don’t like the fact that there are consequences at a physical level for their dreams of avarice and domination. Yeah, I’m all out of sympathy today. 

On the same day, the Leipzig twunts were being rewarded for their cowardice, a bunch of brave black people were being murdered for their courage. 

What I think we can learn from this

you can rely on rich old white privilege men to have a higher fuck Todd potential, quote quotient. You can rely on military dictatorships to murder Earth defenders.

What happened next

The denialists kept denying; the Leipzig Declaration was joined by the Oregon petition. All part of the larger asshole manoeuvres. And future generations continued to get screwed. 

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
IPCC Swtizerland

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 9, 1988, the director of the United Nations Environment Program, the Egyptian scientist Mostafa Tolba, gave a stark opening address at the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Tolba, M.: 1988, ‘Warming: Warning’, Opening Speech at the First Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, November 9.

Oreskes and Conway 2010, page 184

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 the IPCC had been set up after negotiations, especially with the Americans. They wanted an intergovernmental panel that was frankly dependent, because they didn’t want to get “bounced” in the way they perceived they had been over the question of Ozone, by Bob Watson and his ilk (including Tolba).

What I think we can learn from this is that the institutional settings the terms of reference, who’s going to fund what, who’s going to deliver what and how matter.

What happened next

The IPCC delivered its first assessment report in 1990. Was attacked (see Ted Benton in the Greening of Machiavelli anecdote about Sundsvall).

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
Academia United Kingdom

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

Twenty three years ago, on this day, November 9, 2000, an academic collaboration finally ground into existence, after a 1997 Tony Blair election promise…

The Tyndall Centre is a national United Kingdom centre for trans-disciplinary research on climate change. It is dedicated to advancing the science of integration, to seeking, evaluating and facilitating sustainable solutions to climate change and to motivate society through promoting informed and effective dialogue. The Centre was constituted in October 2000 and launched officially on 9 November 2000.

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/contacts/v.php?id=2713

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Blair’s Labour Party had made a lot of promises in the run up to the 1997 election. One of these was the creation of a scientific body in the UK to look at climate change. And so on this day in November 2000, over three years later – nice sense of urgency Tony! The Tyndall Centre had been launched.

This was against the backdrop of stalling international climate negotiations in the midst of the uncertainty about whether Gore or Bush would be president in the end. George W. Bush’s dad’s mates on the Supreme Court fixed it for him. With the collapse of the negotiations at The Hague it was all looking pretty bleak. 

What the Tyndall Centre would do, if one were to be cynical about it, is offer institutional homes for disciplinary and interdisciplinary work around climate change. Ultimately there’s something deeper and longer going on here isn’t there? There is a failure to really solve these problems. So you have to ask yourself, why do we keep doing what we keep doing? It’s because this change is really difficult and it’s comforting to keep doing what we’re doing. Fewer costs. It’s easier to be a winner on a losing team than a loser on a losing team because even if you switch, you yourself will not derive benefit, but I digress.

What I think we can learn from this

Academics gonna academic. It’s no bad thing.

What happened next

Tyndall is still going, still producing great work (I mean that sincerely, not snarkily!).

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.