Month: March 2024

Categories
United States of America

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News report

Forty two years ago, on this day, March 25th 1982, there was network news coverage of “The Greenhouse Effect”.

The CBS Evening News for March 25, 1982 included a two minute and 50 second story by David Culhane on the greenhouse effect. Chemist Melvin Calvin raised the threat of global warming, Representative Al Gore called for further research, and James Kane of the Energy Department said there was no need for haste. 

(Sachsman, 2000)

You can see the clip here

Carbon Dioxide and Climate : The Greenhouse Effect hearings of the House Committee on Science and Technology, 97th Congress, March 25 1982 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002758682

See also https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6584134

See also the detailed account in Nathaniel Rich’s Losing Earth

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was becoming a real cause of concern among scientists and a very small band of civil servants and elected politicians who were in close touch with these scientists. There had already been hearings in 1980, led by Senator Paul Tsongas, who was communicating with scientists like Wally Broecker. And here was another set of hearings, this time within Congress, with Al Gore in the mix too.  It’s also happening just after the AAAS meeting in Washington, DC, with James Hansen and Herman Flohn expressing real concerns. It’s happening just as the Reagan administration, believe it or not, has got the “carbon dioxide science and consensus” meeting going. So the timing is good. 

What we learn is that within the policy subsystems, people are building meetings, reports, seminars, networks, fighting to edge the issue closer and closer to being “on the agenda.” You can say what you like about Al Gore – I’m sure much of it is true. But he has persisted. It’d be interesting to know what Roger Revelle thought of Gore’s efforts in the 80s. 

What happened next? There were more hearings in 84. And then in 85, the whole issue started to be turbo-charged, because of a meeting of scientists in Austria, in the city of Villach. And after that, they kept trying harder and harder. And yes, got it onto the agenda, in the summer of 1988. 

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: 

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

March 24, 2004 – Launch of Coal21 National Plan

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 24th, 2004, all that nonsense about “clean coal” got a boost.

LAST Wednesday Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane launched COAL21, a plan of action aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions arising from the use of coal in electricity generation.

O’Neill, M. (2004) Coal industry’s plans to clean up its act should not be lightly dismissed .Canberra Times, March 30.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Liberal Prime Minister John Howard had pulled Australia out of the Kyoto negotiations in 2002. And therefore, technology-centric so-called solutions, such as CCS were flavour of the month. There was an Energy White Paper on the way. And it was a battle between fossil fuels and renewables. Things like Coal21 provide nice talking points, and sources of sound bites and images for supporters of the status quo to pretend matters are in hand.

What we learn is that much of what seems to be the official government policy aimed at making everyone’s lives better, especially Vorsprung durch Technik, is in fact, short-term PR stunts, where it really doesn’t matter if it comes off or not. It only has to last until slightly beyond the next election. And as long as it’s all plausibly deniable, then the politicians and funders are largely happy. 

What happened next 

Coal21 had some conferences. And then various projects were announced and didn’t eventuate or were failures even under their own terms – looking at you Gorgon. But that’s okay because their success or failure in the real world was kind of irrelevant. They were there primarily to support the continued existence of the fossil fuel industry. 

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: 

March 24, 1989 – Exxon Valdez vs Alaska. (EV wins)

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil.

Categories
Australia

March 23, 2011 – Ditch the Witch rally in Canberra

Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 23rd, 2011, the deplorables behaved deplorably.

2011 Anti-carbon tax rally in Australia with “Ditch the witch” sign and Abbott http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3171851.htm

Craig Emerson disgusted by it “wanted to vomit”- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/craig-emerson-wanted-to-vomit-anti-gillard-signs/6567800

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Abbott had become opposition leader in late 2009 by leading the anti climate action faction of the Coalition, against Malcolm Turnbull , who wanted to go along with some version of what Kevin Rudd was proposing with his Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. 

Abbott had then been enormously effective opposition leader against Rudd, and had almost won the 2010 election against Julia Gillard, in part thanks to leaks from the Labour Party Cabinet that were enormously damaging (can’t think who had the means motive and opportunity to leak that information). 

And Abbott had been willing to sell his ass to become prime minister, but the independents like Tony Windsor, were not buying. So he had faced off against Julia Gillard and was proclaiming that her proposal for an emissions trading scheme was a “great big tax on everything”. And this was one of the moments where he misjudged how far he could push it. And the rally provoked a certain amount of disgust and sympathy for Gillard, the misogyny and homophobia on display. Among the signs was not something that Abbott showed himself to be particularly uncomfortable with. And he issued a non-apology apology and then kept attacking Gillard who eventually the following year, declared that she wasn’t going to “take any lectures about misogyny from that man.” 

What did we learn? In the heat of battle within a culture war people do and say things that haunt them forever afterwards, fairly or unfairly. The reader can judge for themselves. Whether Abbott was fairly or unfairly branded with this incident it didn’t seem to affect his ability to win the 2013 election. 

What happened next Gillard got the legislation through, Abbott repealed it. And here we 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.

Also on this day: 

March 23, 1989 – cold fusion!!

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

Categories
Australia

March 22, 2007 – Unions talk good game on climate

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 22nd, 2007, all the right words get said by the Australian unions.

The ACTU has called for sweeping national reforms across transport, mining, agriculture, construction, education and public health to tackle climate change and generate new jobs. The comprehensive green action plan will increase pressure on federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd to adopt a more radical climate change policy as Labor prepares for next month’s national conference. Reforms outlined in the ACTU’s newly endorsed climate change strategy include government subsidies for energy efficient retrofitting of buildings, new mandatory green building codes for all commercial buildings, large-scale reuse of treated effluent, improved vehicle fuel efficiency and greater use of shipping to cut national transport emissions. ACTU secretary Greg Combet described climate change as ”the pre-eminent policy challenge of our time”, and urged industry to ”face up to global warming and be accountable for investing in sustainable jobs rather than raising the fear of job losses and expecting government handouts”.

Beeby, R. 2007. Union pressure on climate. Canberra Times, 22 March. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that everyone in Australia was being performatively concerned about climate change since about September of the previous year. To be fair, the ACTU had been wringing their hands on climate since 1989. But they had allowed – fatally – the mining union to be in charge of energy policy, which meant very weak climate policy, very pro-fossil fuels climate policy. And by now, the ACTU was messing around with the whole idea of carbon capture and storage, see Coal21, etc. And this was the latest iteration of that. 

What we learn is that trade unions are really good on workers rights, and essential in my opinion, and can be incredibly innovative, and be engines of democracy. But they can also be unhappily on climate, largely crap; not all of them all of the time, but too many of them most of the time. And the books I’ve read, and the articles I’ve read, are a little bit too hagiographic for my liking. 

What happened next? Kevin Rudd, once he became prime minister, threw insane quantities of taxpayers’ money at the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, for which there’s virtually nothing to show. 

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: 

March 22, 1960 – US Television warning of carbon dioxide build up, courtesy Athelstan Spilhaus…

March 22, 2012 – flash mobs and repertoire exhaustion

Categories
Australia Coal UNFCCC

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1994, a local council in New South Wales, Australia says yes to another coal fired power station, on the day that the UNFCCC comes into farce. Sorry, force.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had a growing economy, and needed more electricity. The easiest way to do that was to dig up and burn coal. So we do the easiest thing. Councils are going to wave through the sorts of things because jobs, donations to parties, perks, a sense of normalcy.

And the UNFCCC being ratified and becoming law the same day? It’s just one of life’s historical ironies. The Greenpeace campaign against Redbank is also just not even historical footnote really is it? There you are. 

What happened next. Redbank pumped out seriously amounts of planet-cooking CO2. 

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

Greenpeace Australia Ltd v Redbank Power Company Pty Ltd and Singleton Council [1994] NSWLEC 178, (1994) 86 LGERA 143, Land and Environment Court (NSW, Australia)

Chamberlain, P. 1994. Danger in cheap power. Canberra Times. November 13, p. 6

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/130537382

Also on this day: 

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

Categories
United States of America

March 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, March 20th, 1967, a solar energy advocate pointed to carbon dioxide build-up as a problem…

March 20 1967 Introductory address to Solar Energy Society conference in Tempe Arizona by Peter E Glazer – “In addition, concerns were emerging out of the nascent environmental movement about the potential for “certain new technologies” to “imperil the future welfare and safety of mankind.” 

The possibility of global warming caused by the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and problems stemming from the disposal of radioactive waste, constituted additional “limitations on the tremendously increased requirements expected for electrical power over the next century.”

Charles E Johnson 2015 (PhD thesis)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this stage, articles were appearing in mainstream newspapers, but also in specialist publications. The nuclear lobby was talking about climate change – see the Glenn Seaborg commencement address in San Diego in 1966. And so it’s not entirely surprising that an advocate of solar energy should pick up on the carbon dioxide problem and communicate it.

What we learn from this is that proponents of different energy systems besides digging up rocks, and oil and gas, were already talking about CO2 build-up. By the late 1960s it was appearing more prominently in scientific journals ( Philip Abelson, the editor of Science mentions it, for example). 

What happened next, solar energy didn’t get the kinds of investment that it needed. And it took another 50 years really before it became a serious player.  Because the species has a death wish, actually, that’s not accurate; I don’t think the species necessarily has a death wish. I think there are people within the species who are very comfortable getting rich and being rich, flogging fossil fuels, and they’re hardly inspired by the idea that the fossil fuels they’re flogging need to be rapidly phased down or phased out. This is hardly a controversial view. It’s just they’ve been doing it for a lot longer than we think perhaps.

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

Johnson, C. 2015. “Turn on the Sunshine”: A History of the Solar Future. PhD thesis, University of Washington

Also on this day: 

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

Categories
Arctic Science Scientists United States of America

March 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, March 19th, 1956, the question of possible climate change due to carbon dioxide build-up gets an airing (sorry) in the Washington Post.

19 March 1956 Washington Post story on Revelle’s predictions 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Roger Revelle as well as being a really good scientist was a really good political operator. He knew how to tell Senators interesting stories so that they would give big science, big money. And one of the stories Revelle was telling in ‘56, ahead of the impending International Geophysical Year was that carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere might cause some interesting physical effects. 

What we learn from this is that the idea of the independent scientists mucking around with his test tubes is a comforting myth, but only a myth. And already, by the end of the 40s, this was entirely obvious, given how the war had been one, Manhattan Project, Vannevar Bush, all of that stuff. 

What happened next? With some of the money, a tiny portion of the money that Revellel got, he hired Charles David Keeling to make fantastically accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2, giving us the Keeling Curve and evidence that yes, carbon dioxide was definitely building up in the atmosphere. Until that point this was not entirely certain, though it was strongly suspected. It’s always good to have proper evidence to back up your suspicions, isn’t 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.

References

Norman, L. 1956. Fumes Seen Warming Arctic Seas. The Washington Post and Times Herald; March 19,  pg. 3

Also on this day: 

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

Fifty two years ago, on this day, March 18th, 1971, a US investigative journalist digs up a weather modification scandal.

…in the jungles over North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.32 Under operation POPEYE, the Air Weather Service conducted secret cloud seeding operations to reduce traffic along portions of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Flying out of Udorn Air Base, Thailand without the knowledge of the Thai government or almost anyone else, but with the full and enthusiastic support of President Johnson,33 the AWS flew over 2,600 cloud seeding sorties and expended 47,000 silver iodide flares over a period of five years at an annual cost of approximately $3.6 million. 

In March 1971, nationally syndicated columnist Jack Anderson broke the story about Air Force rainmakers in Southeast Asia in the Washington post; several months later the Pentagon papers confirmed his information.

Jack Anderson, Washington Post (18 Mar 1971) Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn between 1967 and 1972 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American military machine had spent the last seven years trying to defeat a bunch of peasants sorry, that’s unfair to the North Vietnamese. And it had bombed the crap and defoliated the crap out of Vietnam and killed so, so many people and they also tried lots of weather modification too.

What we can learn from this is that weather and climate studies have been surprisingly, always been intimately related to military needs, whether it is forecasting the weather for the D-Day landings in 1944, or all sorts of demented schemes to send hurricanes at the “bad guys”. See James Rodger Fleming’s 2010 book Fixing the Sky.  

What happens next 

Nixon pulled the American troops out in ‘73, the Communists took over in 75. Vietnam became, after an economically ropey interlude, a prosperous and enormous nation. People forget how many people live there now…

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: 

March 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

Categories
Activism Australia Science Scientists

March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Ten years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2014, the wheels on the bus went round and round…

‘CARBON BUS’ NORTHERN TOUR 17-20 MARCH 2014

Eleven lucky applicants participated in the tour, which left from Townsville QLD and visited the Lansdown Research Station, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, ‘Wambiana’ Station and the Wambiana Research Site. Participants heard from leading specialists in climate science and agriculture and practising agriculturalists, including:

Professor Snow Barlow, University of Melbourne

Dr Ed Charmley, CSIRO

Dr Chris Stokes, CSIRO

Dr Steven Bray, QLD DAFF

Peter O’Reagain, QLD DAFF

Andrew Ash, QLD DAFF

Geoff Dickinson, QLD DPI

Roger Landsberg, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, Charters Towers

John Lyons and Michelle Lyons, ‘Wambiana’ Station, Charters Towers

The tour was enlightening and beneficial for all participants, but you don’t need to take our word for it, click here to hear from them direct…or watch the Virtual Tour video to see the tour highlights.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399.9ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Prime Minister Tony Abbott had recently abolished – or was in the process of abolishing – the emissions trading scheme that Julia Gillard had shepherded through parliament in 2011. And climate activists were at a low ebb, and understood that they really had to go out and engage people who didn’t “get” to the climate issue. The trouble is that these sorts of tours from the south, to educate the benighted, ignorant, rural savages don’t work. Now, for the avoidance of any doubt. I’m sure that that’s not what the organisers of this carbon bus tour thought or felt on any level: but it’s easy for their good intentions to be painted.as such. I don’t have a solution. I suppose the climate education has to come from within these communities, from people who are trusted?  Who those people are and how they might be supported, is beyond me. I guess. There’s always the internet….

What happened next? Well, the most infamous example of all this is the 2018 tour of Queensland by a whole bunch of greenies who thought that they were helping Bill Shorten get elected, and most definitely were not. This was something that was curiously absent from the Bob Brown hagiography about the tall giants or whatever it’s called. (see film review here). 

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: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

Categories
Australia

March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1994, the Australian political elites lived up to their convict heritage.

“Cabinet is understood to have agreed in January 1991, before talks on the UN convention, that Australia would not proceed with measures which had “net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia’s trade competitiveness in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse gas-producing countries”.

Former environment minister and former senator, Mr Graham Richardson, used exactly the same words when he described the joint Commonwealth-State position on climate change to Parliament on March 16.”

Gill, P. 1994. Minister signals change of policy on greenhouse gas. The Australian Financial Review, 26 May, p.6. [On Evans using exactly the same words on 24 May]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that Australia had made a very weak eye-catching commitment in October of 1990, saying that it would reduce emissions if other large emitters did so, on the proviso that there were no economic consequences to speak of. Australia had not introduced any carbon tax and only had a pissweak “national greenhouse response strategy” which was utterly toothless. The UNFCCC treaty had been ratified by enough nations quite quickly, and was going to become law imminently. And therefore the problem for Australia was they’d signed it. What might they have to do? And this was Graham Richardson, who only five years earlier had been a tub thumping “we must save the world” activist who can be credited with having won the 1990 election for Hawke. He was backtracking, or in his eyes, reading aloud the fine print. 

What we learn from this Is that a politician will be a fire breathing tub thumper when it suits him or her. But as soon as implementation of firebrand tub thumping policies might impinge on donors and elite allies, they suddenly change their tune. 

What happened next. A carbon tax was defeated again. The next Environment Minister went to Berlin and was forced to agree with the idea of Australia joining other rich nations in negotiating emission cuts under the so-called Berlin mandate. And Australia then shat all over that, of course. 

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: 

March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports