Month: February 2024

Categories
Uncategorized

February 22, 2020 – CO2 pipeline accident – “Like something out of a zombie movie”

On this day four years ago, February 22 2020, a pipeline carrying carbon dioxide ruptured. It turns out that Carbon Dioxide is Not Good For You…

It was just after 7 p.m. when residents of Satartia, Mississippi, started smelling rotten eggs. Then a greenish cloud rolled across Route 433 and settled into the valley surrounding the little town. Within minutes, people were inside the cloud, gasping for air, nauseated and dazed.

Some two dozen individuals were overcome within a few minutes, collapsing in their homes; at a fishing camp on the nearby Yazoo River; in their vehicles. Cars just shut off, since they need oxygen to burn fuel. Drivers scrambled out of their paralyzed vehicles, but were so disoriented that they just wandered around in the dark.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gassing-satartia-mississippi-co2-pipeline_n_60ddea9fe4b0ddef8b0ddc8f

The context

Pipelines are everywhere, transporting things we rely on without even knowing about. It’s only when something goes wrong (and things always go wrong, eventually) that you notice.  The broader context is that the CCS proponents are suggesting an INSANELY LARGE number of pipelines, built almost instantaneously.  Yeah, that’s gonna happen…

What we learn

Normal accidents will happen. And we never learn, really, because that would require close and sustained attention of those with power…

What happened next

It oddly didn’t get a lot of global coverage. But it will if pipelines from capture sites (be they power plants or from “Direct Air Capture” start springing 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

https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2022/09/11/here-minute-details-2020-mississippi-co-2-pipeline-leak-rupture-denbury-gulf-coast/8015510001/

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/21/1172679786/carbon-capture-carbon-dioxide-pipeline

https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/26/22642806/co2-pipeline-explosion-satartia-mississippi-carbon-capture

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gassing-satartia-mississippi-co2-pipeline_n_60ddea9fe4b0ddef8b0ddc8f

https://www.desmog.com/2023/09/14/satartia-disaster-an-anomaly-james-millar-damage-control-carbon-capture-canada/#:~:text=A%2024%2Dinch%20pipeline%20exploded,concerns%20that%20mention%20the%20incident.

CO2 Pipelines and Carbon Capture: The Satartia Mississippi Accident Investigation

Also on this day: 

Feb 22, 2000 – Japanese coal-burning to be dealt with by Australian trees?

February 22, 2013 – Idiotic “Damage” astroturf attempted by miners

Categories
Denial United States of America

February 22, 1991 – Denialist gloating about influence on Bush

Thirty three years ago, on this day, February 22nd, 1991, a super-annuated physicist suffering Relevance Deprivation Syndrome, was boasting of his influence (probably fairly accurately, sad to say).

In a February 1991 letter to the vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, Robert Jastrow crowed , “It is generally considered in the scientific community that the Marshall report was responsible for the Administration’s opposition to carbon taxes and restrictions on fossil fuel consumption. Quoting New Scientist magazine, he reported that the Marshall Institute “is still the controlling influence in the White House.”

(Oreskes and Conway, 2010:190) [letter dated 22nd February]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from 1989 the George C. Marshall Institute and the Global Climate Coalition had been leading a public assault on the science and scientists. They were winning some victories, undeniably. Jastrow was motivated to overplay the George C. Marshall Institute’s influence but then again, he was largely right. 

What we learn is that past their sell-by-date, physicists, overconfident who backed the wrong horses (see Jastrow in 1978, banging on about another ice age) are still useful to those who would like to stop something happening. You borrow their prestige, you create the uncertainty and especially doubt in the public mind, and you just slow everything down. And that’s what happened here. 

What happened next. Team Fuckwit won the crucial battles in 1991/1992. Targets and timetables were excluded from the UNFCCC text. And Team Fuckwit kept winning battles and made a lot of money for rich people who wanted to stay rich or get richer. And there you have it. 

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.

Also on this day: 

Feb 22, 2000 – Japanese coal-burning to be dealt with by Australian trees?

February 22, 2013 – Idiotic “Damage” astroturf attempted by miners

Categories
United Kingdom

February 21, 1972 – Horizon and the backlash against “selling doomsday”

Fifty two years ago, on this day, February 21st, 1972, BBC’s Horizon programme focussed on the “overselling” of ecological concerns.

Horizon – “How They Sold Doomsday”  21-2–1972 – In this episode, Horizon looks the the ecological movement, and the resistance against the movement in Britain, and the USA.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a backlash against ecological concerns had been underway for a couple of years, and was here picking up momentum.

What we learn

Ecological thinking makes rich, technologically-obsessed, powerful people feel extremely uncomfortable. The idea that there might be limits, to use the apposite word, to their prowess and that the thing that they have thought good, that they have devoted their life to is actually quite bad, is threatening to their sense of self.

Rather than sit and contemplate that idea for any length of time, they obviously find something else to do which is shoot the messenger and attack. And of course, there are always some of the messengers who can plausibly be attacked because they have over-egged the pudding or gone to overconfident predictions. But the core of the message is accurate. And so a straw man gets set up rather than a steel man. And the steel man would have made us all smarter and maybe safer. It wasn’t to be…

What happened next. The attacks on the message and the messengers continued. For example, John Maddox, editor of Nature, has a book called “The Doomsday Syndrome”. And then these were recycled in the 1980s and 90s and in fact down unto this day.

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.

Also on this day: 

 Feb 21, 1978 – “Carbon dioxide, climate and society” workshop

Feb 21, 1995 – an invitation to engage in the IPCC is declined, again…

Categories
Australia Coal

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Seven years ago, on this day, February 20th, 2017, money earmarked for technology was revealed to have been spent on propaganda.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-20/coal-advertising-funded-by-money-meant-for-clean-coal-research/8287326

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian coal industry had created a levy on its members that was allegedly going to be spent on investigating low emissions technologies, it was called ACALET. But it turns out that CCS is mind bogglingly expensive. And given that the pressure for emissions reductions had gone away because Prime Minister Tony Abbott had abolished the Gillard Emissions Trading Scheme, they decided to syphon off money into PR efforts.

What we learn is that money collected to save the world can easily be repurposed to screw the world and sustain the rich and powerful. 

What happened next? It was a one-day scandal.  

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.

Also on this day: 

 February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

Feb 20, 2006 – Clive Hamilton names a “Dirty Dozen”

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

February 19, 1971 – Nature editorial on “The Great Greenhouse Scare”

Fifty three years ago, on this day, February 19th, 1971, John Maddox, ditor of the British Science Journal covers himself in glory on the topic of climate change.

19 Feb 1971 The Great Greenhouse Scare editorial by John Maddox NATURE VOL. 229 FEBRUARY 19 1971 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more people were talking about carbon dioxide buildup. Maddox would presumably have known that there was going to be a Study of Man’s Impact on Climate in Sweden. He knew that the Alkali Inspectorate had come out with a report in the August of 1970. So this was another salvo and Maddox by this time was writing a book called The Doomsday Syndrome. 

What we can learn is that smart, elite, hardworking people can be fundamentally wrong. They can also dig their heels into the ground and keep being wrong, because the ego leads them to believe that they must be right. 

What happened next, Maddox published his book. As late as July 1988. Maddox was being a douche on the subject. See  “jumping the greenhouse gun.”  And the 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.

Also on this day: 

 February 19, 2003 – “CCS to be studied by IPCC”

Feb 19, 2011 – defunding the IPCC

Categories
Denial Science

February 18, 2004 – “An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 18th, 2004, some scientists tried to expose the George W Bush (actually Cheney) Administration for what it was.

“Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”- Statement to Bush from 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers

http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/1.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had pulled out of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol, had called for the NAS to do a study and then ignored that study. And was generally being George Bush, aka Dick Cheney’s glove pocket. 

What we learn is that National Academy of Sciences sounds prestigious and powerful, but it has very limited power. They’ve been aware of the potential for climate change since well, at least 1957 when they produced booklets as part of the International Geophysical Year that pointed to it as a possibility. Then lots of research in the 1970s and 1980s… Pleaded with Dubya’s dad, to little (no?) effect. (see January 5,1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.)

What happened next, Bush won the 2004 election and we had another four years of denial, obfuscation, outright stupidity. It is what it is.

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.

Also on this day: 

Feb 18, 1978 – “#Climate Experts see a Warming Trend”

February 18, 2011 – Scientist quits advisor role (because ignored on climate?)

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

Feb 17, 2004 – Zero Emissions Technology Conference in Australia. At peak excitement of tech solutions

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 17th, 2004, CCS hype really got going.

JUDGING by the heavy hitters attending a conference on the Gold Coast this week, geosequestration is about to get a substantial workover in Australia in the next few years.

Geosequestration is the capture of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and placing them underground. To some environmentalists the concept is about as popular as toxic waste.

For Australia’s biggest export industry, coal, geosequestration may be the difference between death and survival.

Wilson, N. 2004 Turning coal clean and green. The Australian, February 21 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media/pressrel/0ROB6%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from about 1999/2000 oil and gas companies and their crumb maidens had started being enthusiastic about technology, especially carbon capture and storage as a way of legitimising the ongoing digging up transporting, selling and burning of thermal coal. This was especially important for Queensland and New South Wales (Victoria’s brown coal is unexportable). 

What we learn is that you can wave a new technology, however implausible under people’s noses, and they’ll come trotting, squealing with delight, thinking that there’ll be another trough for them to stick their snouts in. The song remains the same. 

What happened next, the promises around CCS kept going until 2009/10. Reality intervened, physics intervened, economics intervened. The whole promise thing went away again. And then came back 10 years later, because, well…  what else has the fossil fuel industry got? 

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.

Also on this day: 

February 17, 1993 – President Clinton proposes an Energy Tax.

 February 17, 2003 – Bob Carr says John Howard showing poor leadership (too generous!)

Feb 17, 2013 – Scientists, activists, actors, arrested outside Whitehouse, protesting #Keystone

February 17, 2013 – celebrities arrested at Whitehouse, protesting Keystone XL

Categories
United Kingdom

February 16, 1972 – Dept of Env boss “we can’t be complacent”

Fifty-two years ago, on this day, February 17th, 1972, the first UK Environment Minister says “we can’t be complacent.”

In February 1972, Peter Walker, the Environment Secretary, wrote to Edward Heath ‘about the problems said to be in store on a world scale as a result of conflicts between present trends in population and economic growth requiring greater and greater amounts of energy and natural resources’.31 ‘While much of the argument … is extreme, apocalyptic and naıve’, argued Walker, citing both the Limits to Growth and A Blueprint for Survival, the influential green manifesto written by Edward Goldsmith and which had been published in The Ecologist the month before, ‘I do not think we can be complacent about the issues it raises’. After summarizing a ‘creditable list’ of environmental policies, Walker nevertheless stressed that the dangers, if they occur, are sufficiently great that in my view a case has been established to justify the UK Government in taking part … in further work to broaden the existing analysis both in width and depth.

The immediate need would seem to be to decide on the most appropriate way, within Government, of handling the further work that is required … What seems necessary is a central capability, built round a Research Group, within Government … [to] work on the techniques on lines complementary to those being pursued by MIT and elsewhere. TNA CAB 164/1182. Walker to Heath, 16 February 1972. This important letter was copied to Alec Douglas-Home, Tony Barber, Willie Whitelaw, George Jellicoe, John Davies, Jim Prior, William Armstrong, Burke Trend and Lord Rothschild

Agar, 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the environment conference in Stockholm, proposed by Sweden and then accepted by the UN General Assembly in 1968, was imminent.. Meanwhile, the Limits to Growth report was about to come out, and the Blueprint for Survival already had. There was the general aura of apocalypse.  

What we learn is smart people, powerful people were paying serious attention to these issues. It’s easy to blame them for not having done more or not having succeeded. Can we curse people from 50 years ago? Of course, we will be cursed in 50 years or in, in fact, in five years. 

What happened next 

The Stockholm Conference happened. And that kind of gave everyone an invitation to stop thinking about environmental issues, which they gleefully took. It’s no fun staring into the abyss.

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.

Also on this day: 

Feb 16, 2005- The Kyoto Protocol shambles into futile existence, despite Uncle Sam’s best efforts

February 16, 2007 – Liberals say climate is a “mass panic”

Categories
United States of America

February 16, 1970 – Sports Illustrated readers appreciate eco-warning

Fifty-four years ago, on this day, February 16th, 1970, readers of Sports Illustrated write in to say “thanks” for the reprint of Ritchie Calder’s “Mortgaging the Old Homestead” article.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1970/02/16/19th-hole-the-readers-take-over

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Ritchie Calder’s “Mortgaging the Old Homestead” had been syndicated in various places, including the Australian Bulletin. He was a well-respected and well-connected thinker, and it was an elegant summation of the predicament.

What we learn here is that Ritchie-Calder’s “Mortgaging the Old Homestead,” originally published in Foreign Affairs was popping up in all sorts of places; the Bulletin Sports Illustrated, and people were paying attention. People knew that we were in deep shit.  

What happened next? Everyone stayed concerned for a couple of years. But you can’t sustain that in the absence of effective social movements. And so it petered out and went away. 

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.

Also on this day: 

Feb 16, 2005- The Kyoto Protocol shambles into futile existence, despite Uncle Sam’s best efforts

February 16, 2007 – Liberals say climate is a “mass panic”

Categories
Australia

February 15, 2011 – Lenore Taylor’s truth bombs

Thirteen years ago, on this day, February 15th, 2011, Australian journalist Lenore Taylor, who’d been covering climate policy since the very early 1990s, lays out the choices.

For a decade the main parties in Australian politics have been choosing expensive, dumb policies to reduce greenhouse emissions over the cheap, smart option of an efficiently designed carbon price.

They’ve consciously picked ideas that cost 10 times more than the cheapest option of a carbon price, which they have repeatedly promised, only to change their minds.

Taylor, L. 2011. Time to knuckle down to make a choice, before it’s too late. The Age, 15 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the battles over climate policy had been raging in Australia really since – depending on how you count – early 2007 when Kevin Rudd, as new opposition leader had started using it as a baseball bat to clobber John Howard.  By the time of Taylor’s article there had been four years of back and forth, sound and fury. Lenore Taylor, who had been covering the climate issue on and off since the early 1990s,, was pointing out that there was a time when you either piss or get off the pot, and there were consequences for inaction. And guess what? We’re now living with the earliest consequences of inaction. There are more, nastier, consequences to come. 

What we can learn is that smart well-respected journalists have been calling it like it is since the year dot. But they actually have a relatively limited power. 

What happened next Prime Minister Julia Gillard introduced legislation. It was shepherded through Parliament and became law. And then the next government, under Tony Abbott, quite quickly got rid of it. And were super-cheerful that they’d done so. Here’s a photo to prove it. 

An act of astonishing vandalism, stupidity. But there you have it. 

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.

Also on this day: 

Feb 15, 1994 – Isaac Newton versus the Global Forum #Manchester

February 15, 2013 – the carbon bubble, will it burst?