Month: May 2024

Categories
United States of America

May 10, 1968 – “The Age of Effluence” says Time Magazine. C02 build-up mentioned…

Fifty five years ago, on this day, May 10th, 1968 Time magazine published an article on “The Age of Effluence.” It began thus –

WHAT ever happened to America the Beautiful? While quite a bit of it is still visible, the recurring question reflects rising and spreading frustration over the nation’s increasingly dirty air, filthy streets and malodorous rivers—the relentless degradations of a once virgin continent. This man-made pollution is bad enough in itself, but it reflects something even worse: a dangerous illusion that technological man can build bigger and bigger industrial societies with little regard for the iron laws of nature….

Under the sub-heading “The Systems Approach”

It seems undeniable that some disaster may be lurking in all this, but laymen hardly know which scientist to believe. As a result of fossil-fuel burning, for example, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen about 14% since 1860. According to Ecologist Lamont C. Cole, man is thus reducing the rate of oxygen regeneration, and Cole envisions a crisis in which the amount of oxygen on earth might disastrously decline. Other scientists fret that rising carbon dioxide will prevent heat from escaping into space. They foresee a hotter earth that could melt the polar icecaps, raise oceans as much as 400 ft., and drown many cities. Still other scientists forecast a colder earth (the recent trend) because man is blocking sunlight with ever more dust, smog and jet contrails. The cold promises more rain and hail, even a possible cut in world food. Whatever the theories may be, it is an established fact that three poisons now flood the landscapes: smog, pesticides, nuclear fallout.

There’s this too…

Man has tended to ignore the fact that he is utterly dependent on the biosphere: a vast web of interacting processes and organisms that form the rhythmic cycles and food chains in which one part of the living environment feeds on another. The biosphere is no immutable feature of the earth. Roughly 400 million years ago, terrestrial life consisted of some primitive organisms that consumed oxygen as fast as green plants manufactured it. Only by some primeval accident were the greedy organisms buried in sedimentary rock (as the source of crude oil, for example), thus permitting the atmosphere to become enriched to a life-sustaining mix of 20% oxygen, plus nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide and water vapor. With miraculous precision, the mix was then maintained by plants, animals and bacteria, which used and returned the gases at equal rates. About 70% of the earth’s oxygen is thus produced by ocean phytoplankton: passively floating plants. All this modulated temperatures, curbed floods and nurtured man a mere 1,000,000 or so years ago.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was worrying about air pollution, especially smog in cities, and water pollution and noise and so forth. And Time Magazine, as was its want ran articles like the age of effluence, which has a glancing mention of CO2 buildup, which had really come to some I wouldn’t call it prominence, then at least awareness in 1965 with Lyndon Johnson’s special message to Congress.

Since then, it had been popping up here and there, especially in science publications, but also, Roger Revelle had mentioned it in the Saturday Evening Post. Barry Commoner mentioned it in his 1966 book Science and Survival.

What we learn is that we learned nothing, to go full Hegel. 

What happened next? The following year, the environment broke through in part because of the Santa Barbara oil spill as a focusing event. The time was right. The end of ‘69, you know, there was an Earth Day coming, lots of people talking about all these issues, and one of them was CO2 buildup. 

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: 

May 10, 1978 – Women told that by 2000 “we will be frantically searching for alternatives to coal.”

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker 

Categories
United States of America

May 10, 1931 – Daily Oregonian mentioning greenhouse….

Ninety three years ago, on this day, May 10th, 1931, an Oregonian newspaper provides some facts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 308ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that newspapers love to write stories about the weather and climate – “is it getting hotter?””Is it getting colder?” “boffins are undecided” This is a staple and it’s easy to write and readers have opinions on the weather and will write in.

So it’s not a huge surprise that the Daily Oregonian would run a piece. Nor is it a surprise really that carbon dioxide and Svante Arrnehius would get a mention because although scientists had wrongly dismissed Arrhenius on the basis of assumptions about how carbon dioxide would behave in the stratosphere, his ideas made a kind of intuitive sense for other people. (Now this isn’t to say that all ideas that have been dismissed by scientists which make intuitive sense are right!. But in this case…)

What happened next? Well, there was in England a steam engineer called Guy Callendar beavering away. And a few years later, he would submit the paper and then present it at the Royal Meteorological Society. And that would interest a German called Herman Flohn, and also a Canadian called Gilbert Plass from 1953 onwards. Meanwhile, the emissions climbed. 

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: 

May 10, 1978 – Women told that by 2000 “we will be frantically searching for alternatives to coal.”

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker

Categories
Sweden United States of America

May 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate)

Sixty five years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1959, a popular science journal, Science News, covered the findings of Swedish climate scientist Bert Bolin.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bolin had been paying attention. His boss Carl Rossby was now dead and Bolin was stepping up and had spoken at the AAAS meeting earlier that year. 

What we learn – it wasn’t a big secret or surprise or particularly controversial, that CO2 would increase rapidly. Since Gilbert Plass’s statements in 1953 this was common knowledge. 

What happened next Bolin kept working on it, kept pressing. By the early 1970s had got the United Nations Environment Program, created at Stockholm, on side and then became first IPCC chair. He died in 2007.

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: 

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down 

Categories
Academia Interviews Science Scientists United Kingdom

“Institutions would rather watch the world burn than bite the hand that feeds them” – Interview with organiser of open letter to Royal Society about its climate stance

Professor Jason Scott-Warren (Twitter account here) is the organiser of an open letter signed by 2500 academics to the Royal Society about its climate stance. He has kindly answered a few questions about the campaign. (You can read an August 2023 article in The Guardian here. There’s a piece in the Financial Times [paywalled] today, about the RS saying ,in effect, “yeah, nah.”

BTW, the Royal Society has – understandably – a long history in the UK around climate change, which will have to wait for another day. For now, there’s this from 2006, when it chided Exxon for funding denialist groups.

1.  What is the campaign trying to achieve?

The campaign is asking the Royal Society to speak out about the fossil fuel industry and how dangerous it is, both in its determination to carry on exploring for new reserves and in its lobbying activities. Both aspects of its behaviour should be red lights for scientists, at a time when the Paris Agreement goals are hanging by a thread. If the Royal Society were to make a statement about this, it would help to galvanise action in the UK academic community, and to sway public discourse.

2.  How did it get going?

I’ve been involved in campaigns at the University of Cambridge, initially to persuade the University to divest from fossil fuel companies and more recently to ask it to cut all research and philanthropic ties with them. It became clear to me that some scientists at the University were willing to give the likes of BP and Shell the benefit of the doubt because the Royal Society had not given a clear steer in this area. So I decided to start an open letter calling for an unambiguous statement. The letter now has more than 2500 signatures from UK academics.

3. What has the Royal Society’s response been – was it in anyway surprising?

The Royal Society has engaged with us, albeit at a pace that has not always inspired confidence. They agreed to hold a meeting with a small group of signatories, and discussed our demands in detail. But we were not surprised when they eventually turned our request down, pointing to all the other worthy things that they were doing on climate, and saying it would be inappropriate to condemn one sector ‘within a complex system where multiple actors need to engage urgently with these challenges’.

Decoded, this means they have swallowed the fiction that fossil fuel companies are ‘part of the solution’. At some point in the future, the story goes, these companies are going to suck all the carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it under the ocean, just so long as they can carry on generating obscene profits in the here-and-now. The susceptibility of the Royal Society to this narrative is not entirely surprising. The idea of a technological solution to the climate problem flatters their rather narrow sense of their mission. More broadly, the entanglement of some parts of the scientific establishment with the petrochemical industry is so deep that they cannot register what is happening before their eyes. They cannot admit that they have created a machine that has run out of control, and which is rapidly destroying the biosphere.

4.  What are the next stages, and what help are you looking for?

In a way, this is all just more evidence (as if we needed it) that petitions and polite debates don’t work. Money trumps everything, and institutions would rather watch the world burn than bite the hand that feeds them. We need more direct action to demand changes that will never come by asking nicely. But I do think we need to keep putting pressure on the timid institutions that we inhabit, and to alert them to the fact that they have urgent moral responsibilities that they are failing to address. Their behaviour is going to look as shameful in retrospect as propping up the slave trade or apartheid. They still have an opportunity to rectify this.

5. Anything else you’d like to say.

We should celebrate the institutions that are taking a stand in this area—the UN, the International Energy Agency, the BMA and others.

Categories
United States of America

May 8, 1980 – Nature article “CO2 could increase global tensions.” Exxon discussed underneath. Delicious ironies abound.

Forty four years ago, on this day, May 8th, 1980, there was an ironic juxtaposition in the British science journal Nature…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the synfuels battle had just happened. And Americans, political leaders had been warned about the geopolitical consequences of CO2. Other people were saying the same stuff. 

What we learn is that CO2 was a really live issue in the late 70s, early 80s. People knew what was coming, they couldn’t say exactly when. And history is full of these delicious little moments, I guess.

What happened next, Exxon gave up on renewables and being vaguely responsible and all the rest of it and switched to denial very effectively. American politicians continued to be aware of CO2. There were congressional hearings, Senate hearings and then after 1985 it really picked up steam. 

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: 

May 8, 1972 – “Teach-in for Survival” in London

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

May 8, 2013 – we pass 400 parts per million. Trouble ahead.

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

Categories
Australia

May 7 1991 & 1992: From Hawke to Hewson, or “the year Australia’s political elite stopped bothering about #climate change”

 

Thirty three/two years ago, on this day, May 7th, 1991 and 1992, the Australian leader of the opposition’s trajectory shows an early (and permanent) retreat by “conservative” parties on the biggest question of the twenty-first century. Such leadership!!

For those coming late to the party: through the 1970s and 1980s a few politicians, from Liberals, Nationals and Labor, had warned of climate problems. The issue “blew up” in 1988 and 1989. The Liberals went to the federal election of March 1990 with a more ambitious carbon dioxide reduction target than the ALP. Yes, you read that right, more ambitious.

But then, as we see below, the new Liberal Leader, John Hewson, changed his tune (meanwhile, Prime Minister Bob Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who had no love for environmentalists or environmental issues. Whatsoever). So, with that said, check out the two quotes, a year apart.

The environment could be a victim of the move to reform Federal-state relations, Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Phillip Toyne said in Canberra last week.

He said environment groups see the special Premiers’ conference on federalism as posing a threat to a national ecologically sustainable development strategy.

“We think that substantial erosion of progress in the regulation and control of environmental management could be taking place,” he said.

“Much of the work is at departmental level, with the chairs of all of the various working groups coming from state bureaucracies.”

On Tuesday [7th], Prime Minister Bob Hawke met with the ESD roundtable, the umbrella body that has a general oversight of the work of the ESD working groups. About 30 people were there, including representatives from the greens, industry, the states, welfare agencies and some federal ministers.

Toyne said later: “I thought that there were some rather glib comments on the progress of the exercise.”

“it is absolutely extraordinary that there has been almost no scrutiny of the process by the media, very little information has reached us, and yet it could be profoundly affecting not only the outcomes for ecologically sustainable development but also many other aspects of national policy.”

Anon, 1991. Environment “A Victim of Reform”. Green Week, May 14, p.5.

And exactly a year later…

And in 1992, Dr Hewson captured the full flavour of the initiative in a speech to the Australian Mining Industry Council annual dinner on May 7, 1992, when he described it as sustainable development with a capital D. This move is really an exercise in fast-tracking, with an absolute limit of 12 months on government processes of evaluation, failing which the project gets automatic go-ahead.

This is dangerous, based as it is on the assumption that red, black or green tape is simply frustrating developments, rather than complex issues being carefully evaluated. There is also a quite dishonest attempt to list a long list of stalled projects without acknowledging that many had not proceeded for commercial reasons.

[Toyne, P. 1993. Environment forgotten in the race to the Lodge. Canberra Times, 8 March p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

This is another one of those “What a difference a year makes” Pivotal, blah blah blahs.

The context is that in 1991 the ecologically sustainable development process was underway. Yes, the greenhouse issue wasn’t as sexy as it had been because people have gotten bored. And there’s also been the small matter of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iraq, Kuwait, and the military response. But it was still a “hot” issue. And there were concerns about things possibly being watered down. Fast forward to exactly a year later and the Liberals have given up on trying to get green votes. They are still feeling the “betrayal” of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

John Hewson, who had seen off Bob Hawke, and looked like he was going to defeat Paul Keating (because it was before the wedding cake gate), felt that he didn’t have to make the same green noises that people did a couple of years previously. 

What we learn is that the mood music changes and that you can track it. And this was the time when, if there had been real leadership, we would have stuck to issues, but there wasn’t. So we didn’t. And here we are,

What happened next. The Liberals came to power in 1996, under John Howard, and dialled the indifference/hostility of the Keating gang up to 11. Or 12. 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: 

May 7, 1966 – scientist warns public about carbon dioxide build-up…

May 7, 2001 – The American way of life is non-negotiable. Again.

Categories
Science United States of America

May 6, 1977 – Bert Bolin article in Science about increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations owing to forestry and agriculture

Forty seven years ago, on this day, May 6th, 1977, Swedish scientist Bert Bolin sounded a warning about other sources (besides burning oil, coal and gas) leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Source – https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.196.4290.613?casa_token=uAeo-ORaYTsAAAAA:IXMCd01f0aXX1KI_4E-_7x6PZC5_KW3MFgSHKAmDJ9wrZz1GMxc_o0Ga0glPcnCvHTBjvTYBpVnn

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bolin had been looking at carbon dioxide buildup and its consequences since the late 50s. There were concerns about food production; these had been voiced publicly by Henry Kissinger in 1974. And other work was ongoing about that. What Bolin was doing here was pointing out how deforestation and agriculture might be contributing to CO2 build up alongside the vast increases in fossil fuel burning for energy production.

 What we learn is Bolin was a mensch and that people reading science knew what was going on.

What happened next? Bolin ended up as the first chair of the IPCC and lived long enough to see the Nobel Prize and died shortly after that in 2007.

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: 

May 6, 1997 – The so-called “Cooler Heads” coalition created

May 6, 2004 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard meets business, to kill renewables

Categories
Australia Business Responses

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, May 5th, 2000 former Federal public servant turned BCA Boss David Buckingham opined on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues for Australia.” Business Council of Australia

http://www.bca.com.au/media/strategic-greenhouse-issues-for-australia

Suggests a voluntary domestic emissions trading scheme might be a goer, as a “learning by doing” exercise.

See also Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill 2000. Warming to the Challenge; The Role of Australian Business in Combating Global warming. Address to the World Business Council on Sustainable Development and the Australian Business Council Forum, Melbourne, 5 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were various big conferences being held because there had been the Kyoto Protocol, at the end of ‘97. It looked like Al Gore would be the Democratic Party nominee for the president, and he might win, in which case the US would be taking more climate action, even if Kyoto itself weren’t necessarily on the cards. And therefore, everyone was making plans to be ready for that reality if it emerged in Australia. Yes, the Lavoisier group had been set up, but there were also tensions within the peak bodies, especially the Business Council of Australia about what the Australian response should be of interest in carbon trading, carbon farming and offsets and money to be made. 

And so it wasn’t a simple case of denial or bowing down before the great God of technology, at least not for the more thoughtful members of the business policy outfits. And here we have David Buckingham, who had been a Federal Environment civil servant, before being poached, first by the Minerals Council and then the Business Council. 

What we learn from this is that business was seriously scratching its head about what might be coming and how best to take advantage of what might be coming. 

What happened next? Well, Bush was selected president by his dad’s Supreme Court chums and then quickly pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. In 2003, the BCA had to move from opposition to Kyoto ratification to a “neutral” stance because of fierce fights within it. 

And of course, 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: 

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

Categories
Australia

May 4, 2016 – South Australian Premier preening at Emissions Reduction Summit

Eight years ago, on this day, May 4th, 2016 then premier of South Australia Jay Weatherill said the nice things.

source – https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/industry/modern-energy/hydrogen-in-south-australia/hydrogen-files/hydrogen-roadmap-11-sept-2017.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Jay Weatherill had been South Australian premier since October 2011, and had inherited a very clever policy set up from Mike Rann, where the South Australian government would look at the amount of new wind being installed, because there were federal incentives and set a target for years to come, which was completely in line with the current trajectory. They would win plaudits from desperate, environmentally-minded people who didn’t know the fine details, and then be able to take credit for stuff that was already happening. The name of the game is expectation management. So here was where we were able to say how wonderful South Australia was.

What we learn is there are games people play, and I don’t mean in the Eric Berne/transactional analysis sense.

What happened next? Well, South Australia had a blackout which set the culture war going. Weatherill, overall, played a blinder, and South Australia has continued to be a laboratory for more and more battery batteries, rooftop solar, you name 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: 

May 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence

May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face…

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Business Responses

May 3, 1989 “Exploration Access and Political Power” speech by Hugh Morgan

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 3rd, 1989, Australian businessman and all round lovely guy Hugh Morgan makes a speech at the Australian Mining Industry Council’s “Minerals Outlook Seminar” at ANU

Its title was “Exploration Access and Political Power” and some representative quotes are here –

‘The true environmentalist, the revolutionary who sees man as vile and nature as sacred, is indifferent, if not hostile to economic benefits’ (Morgan 1989, 31).
‘If the politics of nature worship and economic decline … take hold and become institutionalised, then Australia will be seen as a place to leave, not as a place to come’. (Morgan 1989). (cited in McEachern)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at this stage there were probably still a lot of concerned conservatives and businessmen saying “just keep a low profile and it will all blow over; the greenies will find something else to be hysterical about. And if we are a small target, then we stop it from continuing longer than it otherwise would”. Hugh Morgan was not one of those people. And Hugh Morgan was determined to take the fight to the enemy, i.e. people who gave a damn about future generations and ecological survival. 

What we learn is that there are always ideologically committed people within any faction whether it’s the environs of the business lobby, who think that they see the deep underlying pattern. And they may well be right. Just because they’re in a small minority. doesn’t mean they’re wrong. 

What happened next, Morgan kept giving these sorts of speeches about the defence of Western civilization and democracy, by which he meant capitalism and shareholder value and the right to screw other people over. Morgan’s henchman, Ray Evans, then started fighting on climate stuff too, and made links with American outfits. 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.

References

Cahill, D. 2004. The radical neo-liber radical neo-liberal movement as a hegemonic force in Ace in Australia, 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36978766.pdf

Doug McEachern (1995) Mining Meaning from the Rhetoric of Nature—Australian Mining Companies and their attitudes to the environment at home and abroad, Policy, Organisation and Society, 10:1, 48-69, DOI: 10.1080/10349952.1995.11876636

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10349952.1995.11876636

Also on this day: 

May 3, 1978 – First and last “Sun Day”

May 3, 1990 – From Washington to Canberra, the “greenhouse effect” has elites promising…