Month: February 2024

Categories
United Kingdom

February 14,1967 – John Mason (Met Office boss) dismisses carbon dioxide problem

February 14,1967 – John Mason (Met Office boss) dismisses carbon dioxide problem

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, February 14th, 1967, at a public lecture in London, John Mason, the new head of the Meteorological Office, John Mason, basically dismissed the idea that carbon dioxide build-up was a problem.

“A speaker In a discussion on television some time ago mention was made of the possible long term effect of the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. It has been suggested that this may have the effect of raising the temperature and possibly, by melting the polar ice-caps, the sea level.”

Feb 14 – JAMES FORREST LECTURE 1967 Recent developments in weather forecasting and their application to industry

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the month before, the BBC’s annual science round-up Challenge had been broadcast. People were beginning to talk about climate change and the problem of carbon dioxide by the mid 60s. And you see it here with this question from the audience to John Mason, who is of course dismissive.

What we learn is that this was no secret, this was no surprise. We knew about this. 

What happened next Mason continued to be a major blocker on climate. See, for example, comments in July 1970. And then his behaviour at the First World Climate Conference in 1979. 

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 14, 2002 – George Bush promises “Clean Skies” to distract from Kyoto-trashing…

 February 14, 2015  – No love for coal from UK politicians

Categories
Australia

February 13, 2006 – Four Corners reveals the “Greenhouse Mafia”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, February 13th, 2006. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners documentary on “Greenhouse mafia”

You can see a bit of it here

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a lobbyist, Guy Pearse had written a really interesting PhD thesis. The Millennium drought seemed never-ending, as did Australian Prime Minister John Howard‘s opposition to any climate action  unless it was loose and clearly, phoney talk of nuclear as a solution. And so Four Corners, which is a bit like Horizon, was looking to return to an issue that they had  covered extensively in the 1990s. 

And it latched on to recently published research by Guy Pearse. The program was a crucial weakening of Howard’s legitimacy/hegemony which would be dealt killer blows through the rest of 2006.

 What we learn is that academic research can sometimes – if the stars align – make a difference, at least in the agenda-setting phase, possibly, in the implementation phase, who knows? 

 What happened next

A very good book – “High and Dry” came out the following year, based on (but also extending) Pearse’s PhD.  Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister. And you know the rest…

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 13, 2007- Industry is defo allowed to silence scientists…

Feb 13, 2015 – We refuse to divest ourselves of illusions

Categories
Science Swtizerland

February 12, 1979 – First World Climate Conference opens

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 12th, 1979,the First World Climate Conference began in Geneva.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that all through the 1970s, climatologists have become more and more convinced that climate change was happening, and that carbon dioxide was the principal culprit. And so a proposal had been accepted for the first world climate conference. And it opened at some big hall in Geneva where the World Meteorological Organisation is based.

What we learn is that if you want to have an impact, you need these sorts of conferences. Unfortunately, John Mason, the British head of the Meteorological Office was not helpful. 

What happened next? There was ongoing momentum around the climate issue ‘79-80. And then as Al Gore said, in 1988, it all ended once Reagan became president. Or rather, US political support did – the science kept going, best it could.

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 12, 1958- the Unchained Goddess is unchained…

February 12 1968 – The Motherfuckers do their motherfucking thing, with garbage in New York.

Categories
Uncategorized

February 11, 1970 – Prince Phillip, Prince Charles and the Shell/BP “Environment in the Balance” film…

Fifty-five years ago, on this day, February 11th, 1970.

Two things on this day.

One is a European Conservation Year event with Prince Philip and Anthony Crosland, who was still the relevant Secretary of State  as reported in The Spectator by one Stanley Johnson (the wife beater).

And

Showing of Shell-Mex and BP film “Environment in the Balance” – (see issue 2 of “Your Environment”) 

Here’s the beginning of a review from the second issue of Your Environment…

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 that everyone had started wringing their hands about conservation issues, and the European Year of Conservation Year had been announced and was providing an opportunity for this sort of nonsense. Then in the evening in London, there was a showing of a BP film “Environment in the Balance.”  BP had been making so-called educational films – you could also call them propaganda –  for years. And this film was typical hand-wringing, pushing the responsibility on to individuals. 

What we learn is that everyone was running around at this point, saying that “something must be done.”  And that would go on for a couple more years, until they stopped saying it because they were bored, hearing themselves say it, and because it was clear that nothing was going to be 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.

Also on this day: 

February 11, 1993 – Liberal Party plans would not meet climate goals, says expert

Feb 11, 1994 – President Clinton proclaims the end of environmental racism.  Yeah, right.

Feb 11, 1980 – First UK Government climate report released.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 10, 1995 – Faulkner folds on carbon tax – doesn’t have the numbers in Cabinet

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, February 10th, 1995, the Australian Environment Minister John Faulkner conceded that he didn’t have the numbers to get a carbon tax proposal through cabinet.

THE Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, has abandoned proposals for the introduction of a carbon tax …. His decision was made on Friday [10th February] after two days of talks with environmental and business groups

Ellis, S. and Gill, P. 1995. Faulkner calls off plans to impose carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 14 February, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been an entirely sensible idea put forward by the greenies at the Australian Conservation Foundation, among others, to have a small carbon tax that would fund energy efficiency and solar. This had finally been put forward by the environment minister, John Faulkner in 1994. It had led to a vehement coordinated attack on the proposal. The opponents had played their cards very well. The proponents not always so well. And on Friday 10th of February Faulkner had realised he didn’t have the numbers because the crucial role in politics is “learn to count.” 

What we learn is that everybody knows the war is over. Everybody knows the good guys lost and this is one of the times that the good guys lost. What we also learn is that proposals for sanity get made all the time and usually get defeated. 

What happened next?  Faulkner went to COP1 in Berlin and announced himself happy. There was the announcement of the entirely voluntary greenhouse challenge, bullshit that achieved nothing other than to confuse people. Its purpose was to make BHP and its chums look like ”responsible” corporate citizens. 

Also on this day: 

Feb 10, 2010 – Dutch scientists try to plug denialists’ holes in the dike

February 10, 2011 – Australia gets a “Climate Commission”

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage

February 9, 2007 – Virgin on the ridiculous

Seventeen years ago, on this day, February 9th, 2007, Richard Branson waved his cheque book around for a bit of planet saving…

The Virgin Earth Challenge was a competition offering a $25 million prize for whoever could demonstrate a commercially viable design which results in the permanent removal of greenhouse gases out of the Earth’s atmosphere to contribute materially in global warming avoidance.[1] The prize was conceived by Richard Branson, and was announced in London on 9 February 2007 by Branson and former US Vice President Al Gore.[2]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth had come out. The first Climate Camp had happened. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC had just come out. And everyone was wanting to say that they were going to save the world. Whether it was the “grassroots” activists,  the billionaires or the States or the technology people. And so these sorts of competitions were announced. 

What we learn is that everyone wants to feel like they’re the good guy, even if they own an airline. 

What happened next? Oddly, the money never got dispersed. And CCS still hasn’t happened. 

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 9, 1956 – Scientists puzzle over where the carbon dioxide is going….

Feb 9, 2014 –  A Farage-o of nonsense about climate change

Categories
United Kingdom

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Thirty six years ago, on this day, February 8th, 1988 there was a documentary about “the greenhouse effect”, a good seven months before Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did her u-turn and Big Speech at  the Royal Society.

This documentary report by Horizon examines the devastating effects of the Greenhouse Effect (earth’s temperature rising) and how man is causing it.

S1988E06 The Greenhouse Effect

February 8, 1988 BBC Two

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more people were getting wise to the climate issue. It was popping up in the media in scientific journals, et cetera. Etc. And it was exactly the kind of issue that prestige BBC documentary television needed to be making. 

What we can learn from this is that Thatcher’s remarkable speech in September 27, 1988 looks less and less like prescient or like leadership, and more and more like scrambling to catch up ground that was getting away from her. 

What happened next? In June of ‘88, American scientist James Hansen gave his famous testimony and the conference in Toronto, the changing climate happened. And the policy window properly opened. 

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 8, 1965- All the way with LBJ – first President to say “carbon dioxide is building up”

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

Categories
Guest post

Why bother prepping? A (brilliant) guest post

A week ago a very good article called “If we’re all going to die in the collapse, why bother prepping?” appeared.

I sent it to a friend whom I have a great deal of respect for. He replied with this below, and kindly gave his permission for it to be used as a guest post.

At this point, being as prepared as possible for emergency states, for other ways of meeting basic needs, to look out for your neighbours, and so on, should be de rigeur. Of course, so many folks are struggling to just make ends meet as things stand, so there’s already millions (billions?) who can’t “prep” in any meaningful way. Seems likely that the countries that will bear the initial brunt of deadly heatwaves are the ones where the weather is already hot, which are also in many cases where there is a lot of population growth, as well as large absolute population numbers.  So the idea of hitting 10Bn or whatever numbers the UN is chucking about based on “normal” seems increasingly unlikely to me.  We have, I think, somewhat forgotten just how dreadful the “Four Horsemen” can be when they really get going.

I suppose what I find odd about posts like these is the idea that we are certain to see an “end” to “civilisation” and that necessarily means the death of every human being.  I’m not trying to play down the horror of what’s already here, and accelerating. Just that if we were to fast-forward 50 years, what would we expect to see? Humans *are* really intelligent, adaptable, and there is an awful lot of us. So if I had to guess, there will be a few million (tens of millions, perhaps) humans who have witnessed “The Fall”, have had human folly indelibly branded into their racial consciousness, and who are living in a world that is more hostile and less fertile than the one that even we grew up in. But not, I don’t think, one that is wholly uninhabitable. Fast forward 50,000-100,000 years, humanity might even learn to live in something like harmony with the “new earth”, if they can last that long.

Or there might be something lurking “out there” that really will do away with every last human (and a great deal of other life as well, more’s the tragedy). In which case, I can’t stop it, and neither can you. In either case, doing our best to carpe as many damn diems as we can in the meantime, trying to help our fellow living things as we go, seems like the best we can do at this point.

Just that claiming anything in the absolute seems more like a human desire for certainty, than anything else. 

Of course, all of this thinking is happening in a different partition of my brain than the parent part, because otherwise I’d go mad, and that won’t help me help anyone….

This is not a future I’m cheering for, in some sort of misanthropic fug. It’s just the one that, if I stand outside myself and try to extrapolate forward, seems the most likely. It’s worth reminding ourselves that there are many shades of grey in commonly-used terms like “doomed”, “fucked” and whatever other adjectives you might choose to apply to humanity’s future, and the lighter ones, even if locally, even if not forever, will always be worth fighting for

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 7, 1995 – Business Council of Australia vs a carbon tax. Of course

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, February 7th, 1995, the lobby group for big business successfully fought off a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Business Council of Australia yesterday attacked the Federal Government’s proposed carbon tax, saying that it could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries.

Drawing on a report released by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics yesterday, the council said a carbon tax, at any level, would result in lost jobs, production and exports.

The executive director of the council, Mr Paul Barratt, said any carbon tax would have a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries.

Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a fierce battle going on over a proposal for a carbon tax at federal level in Australia, and the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Mining Industry Council, (who made the tie-in official as the AIGN later) were at the forefront of a campaign to stop it. And one of the ways – not the only one,  but one of the ways – was to say that the “sky would fall” economically speaking.  

And what you do is you get some economic modelling by so-called independent experts who set their parameters in such a way that the sky will fall, you then turn that into a report, write a press release. You give it to some tame journalists, who then get it put up on the front page of a newspaper. Then get questions asked in Parliament. It gets picked up on television and the “common sense” that action on climate change will cost a fortune is just that little bit further embedded. 

And they have been playing this game for a very long time. They’re very good at it and the reason they keep playing it is it’s usually a winning tactic for them. 

What happened next. The carbon tax was defeated in February of 1995 before the BCA and its chums had to pull up the really big guns. Policy advocate interest shifted to emissions trading schemes. One was finally introduced in 2012, only to be abolished two years later. Australia deserves everything it gets.

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 7, 1861- 161 years ago, a scientist identifies carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 6, 2007 – Rudd taunts Howard on 2003 ETS decision

On this day, February 6 2007 new Labor leade Kevin Rudd had asked Prime Minister John Howard if a submission proposing an emission trading scheme had gone before cabinet in August 2003 and if that proposal was rejected.

Rudd – and frankly everyone else – knew the answer was “yes”. It had been extensively reported, since at least 2004. In August 2003, Howard had met with some business mates and killed off the Cabinet proposal (which the entire Cabinet, including Joe Hockey, Peter Costello etc were behind). See here – August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Rudd was just trying to embarrass Howard, who had a couple of months before performed a screeching U-turn and appointed Peter Shergold (civil servant) and some business cronies to look at an an ETS.

What we learn – it was all theatre

What happened next. Howard’s U-turn made him look weak rather than caring, and he was swept from power. Kevin Rudd then saved the day (subs, please check).