Month: August 2024

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

August 14, 2007 – CCS report in Australia “between a rock and a hard place”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, August 14th, 2007, a CCS report comes out

2007 Between a rock and a hard place report of House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation (Australia)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the year before the Senate had called for a report about CCS and Australia. This was in the broader context of CCS being pushed by Howard since about 2004 (earlier if you count the PMSEIC stuff). 

What we learn is that these sorts of investigations throw up reports of varying quality and usefulness. 

What happened next? The CCS bandwagon kept going for a couple of years before it finally the wheels came off in late 2010. 

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: 

August 14, 1989 – South Australia creates “interdepartmental committee on #climate change”…

August 14, 1971 – Stanford Prison Study begins…

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

Categories
Science

August 13,1991 – clouds and silver linings

Thirty-three years ago, on this day, August 13th, 1991, we had our heads in the clouds.

Symposium on Aerosol-Cloud-Climate Interactions. August 13-20, 1991, convened by the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, at the XX General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics in Vienna.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that scientists were looking at clouds because clouds matter. And you know, water vapour is a potent, albeit extremely short lived greenhouse gas. And this is in the context of the denialists launching their “It’s all water vapour” nonsense. 

What we learn is that there are always scientists saying “it could be x, it could be way it could be z.” And you know, sometimes they’re right. But sometimes it’s just ABC. 

What happened next? In 1992, we got the climate treaty. Which was piss weak thanks to Uncle Sam. 

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: 

August 13, 1882 – William “Coal Question” Jevons dies

August 13, 2007 – Newsweek nails denialists

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 12, 2009 – Deutsche bank enters modelling war in Australia

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 12th, 2009, the climate wars continue…

A leading global authority on carbon trading has questioned the claimed cost savings of the hybrid emissions trading model being considered by the federal opposition.

Deutsche Bank’s global head of carbon markets, Mark Lewis, said international experience suggested Frontier Economics was wrong to say its model would result in much smaller electricity price increases than would occur under the Rudd government’s proposed ETS.

Breusch, J. 2009. Doubts over emission cost savings. The Australian Financial Review, 12 August, p. 6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberals, then led by Malcolm Turnbull, were trying to offer an alternative to Kevin Rudd CPRS. But of course, it had to be distinct enough and therefore far enough from accepted economic practice norms. Which meant that outfits like Deutsche Bank would be compelled to say it’s crap. 

What we learn is that when there is a consensus around what is “economically efficient,” then bucking that will open you up to all sorts of attacks. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next? I don’t know if the Libs put Deutsche Bank on a blacklist or anything. But what’s interesting is that during the white heat of the climate wars (2010 to ‘13). various consultancies played as dead as they could for fear of missing out on future government contracts.

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: 

August 12, 1970 – US Senate warned about climate change

August 12, 1990 – Channel 4 shows crackpot documentary “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”

August 12, 2010 – BZE launches energy plan for Australia

Categories
Australia

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut)

Fifteen years ago, on this day, August 11th, 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, famously fond of the sound of his own voice, is actually shut up…

“Giant metaphor strikes Parliament,” is how The Onion might have rendered the power outage that, thankfully, cut Kevin Rudd off mid-sentence on climate change in Question Time yesterday. It was the only interesting moment in a Question Time so boring as to be almost physically unendurable.

The Liberals are making a concerted effort to push the Frontier Economics modelling, and good on them. It’s very brave, because the instant response, not merely from Kevin Rudd but from assembled journalists, is why isn’t it policy, and if it isn’t, what is their policy. That’s a question that remains unresolved.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was in Parliament, preening and bleating. This was after his first attempt at legislating his wretched CPRS had failed, and before it was reintroduced in November. This is one of the few examples of Kevin Rudd actually being shut up. 

What we learn is we learn nothing, because we’re human. 

What happened next Rudd reintroduced the CPRS legislation, and it failed. Thanks to Tony Abbott. Kevin Rudd, the Greens possibly in that order? 

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: 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe”

Categories
United States of America

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit

Forty six years ago, on this day, August 10th, 1978 a car blows up, and corporate malfeasance was revealed…

On their way to a church volleyball practice, the three girls—sisters Lyn (16) and Judy Ulrich (18), and their cousin Donna Ulrich (18)—chugged along U.S. 33 in a dusty 1973 Ford Pinto….

CONTINUES

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ford was one of the big three motor companies and had produced lemons in its time. People were dying because of a change that had been made to the Ford Pinto. This change meant that if it was hit from behind, while indicating left, then there was a reasonable chance that a spark would set off the gas tank explosion, and kaboom. Ford had been aware of the problem, but it calculated that recalling vehicles, fixing them and changing the production line would cost more than simply paying out to the families of those killed, injured. And therefore they did what any rational corporation would do. 

What we learn is that there is rationality and logic and there is also utter fucking madness. I would say immorality, but why would you expect a corporation to behave morally? Have you not been paying attention? 

What happened next, Ford got caught. There was a class action lawsuit even and for a little while, people understood that this sort of shit goes on all the time. But the corporate domination of the media means that this message no longer gets through so easily. In a sane world – one that we don’t live in – this would be taught in primary school, and again in secondary school. 

See also – the cargo doors on the plane…

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: 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends

Fifty years ago, on this day, August 10th, 1974, the pivotal Stockholm conference on climate modelling, (29 July to 10 August) ended.

For more about this conference, see here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the 1972 Stockholm Environmental Conference the United Nations Environment Program had been set up, and there was money and interest sloshing around for computer modelling of climate. It was fairly crude by today’s standards, but, you know, baby steps. There was Bolin, Flohn and the others. And presumably, Olof Palme was being kept informed. Flohn certainly briefed Palme at some point. I think that year 

What we learn is that the scientific understanding of the build up of the consequences of the buildup of CO2 came along in leaps and bounds in the 70s. They’re only a couple of years away from “yellow danger light” as per Thomas Malone in July of 1977. Of course, the old beasts – Landsberg Charney and John Mason, were pooh poohing it all together. And Reid Bryson was angry that his dust theory was going tits up. But it was real, the emerging carbon consensus. That’s what we learned. 

What happened next. A meeting in Norwich the following year put the death to the cooling idea. The Energy and Climate report of the National Academy of Sciences came out in 1977. And then, of course, the First World Climate conference in 1979. And that’s the end really, of there being serious debate about the CO2 problem.

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: 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Academia Scientists

August 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

Sixty nine years ago, on this day, August 9th, 1955, Gilbert Plass submits a paper… You can read it here.

(Manuscript received August 9 1955

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Plass had been talking, researching, writing about CO2 buildup for a while. He made public statements in May of 1953 [see my Conversation article], at the American Geophysical Union that went viral. And here he was submitting an article to Tellus, a Swedish academic journal. (Tellus was the watering hole for atmospheric physics those people at that time.) 

What we learn is that smart people could see what was happening. 

What happened next. Plass wrote that paper. He wrote another paper, I think, in 1959. And he also had an article in Scientific American in 1959. That, btw, was advertised in the Observer.

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: 

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Australia

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts.

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 8th, 1990, there’s another push for the Target to be adopted.

“One was launched by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council on August 8, and supports the Toronto target as an interim goal for planning purposes. This has been accepted by the Governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT.” (Begbe, 1990, 10 Sept)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were coming. Australia’s government was committed to Ecologically Sustainable Development because the green groups had extracted that as a promise for their sort of support in the recent federal election. Various state governments and the ACT, for example, had committed to the Toronto target (and in May 1989 Hawke’s Environment Secretary had floated it in Cabinet, to be shot down by Paul Keating, then Treasurer.). The Toronto Target proposed that industrialised nations should cut their emissions by 20% by the year 2005. The denialists were getting up on their hind legs too. 

And here was the Australian New Zealand Environment Council suggesting that Australia and presumably New Zealand, both say yes to Toronto.

What we learn is that invocations to targets have been with us for a very long time. You get such pleasure of announcing/campaigning for a target, but actually getting the people who say yes to do anything about hitting that target, well, that is somewhat more difficult. 

What happened next, in October 1990 the Hawke government did indeed make a promise for an “Interim Planning Target,” hedged with all sorts with caveats about economic costs and other developed nations taking similar action. So it was a non-promise promise, but it allowed Kelly to go off to the Second World Climate Conference with Australia’s reputation in sort of good standing.

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: 

August 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

Categories
United Kingdom

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1979, a Cabinet Office wonk hopes that a vague research effort

“would provide an answer to the environmental and ecological lobby by showing that the Government was taking seriously the possibility of irreversible long-term changes in the climate, particularly those which might conceivably be brought about by man’s intervention,’’ as an internal letter explained;”

letter from N.B.W. Thompson to Mr. Mountfield, 7 Aug 1979, KEW, Ref. I.02375, CAB 184/56

Agar, 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was now an Ecology party. And there were groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Conservation Society. Other outfits campaigning about clean air and not building more airports and so forth. Green Alliance had started. There was an identifiable environment lobby, and the senior civil servants were thinking about how it could be placated perhaps with the release of this interdepartmental report on climatic change, which had been completed in early 1979. 

What we learn is that civil servants think about the politics of it all and how to please their so-called masters. And that by the late 70s, environment was an issue. 

What happened next, the “Climatic Change” report, was released in February 1980. received a small amount of desultory press because it was a desultory document by and large, partly because it just wasn’t taking on board what the Americans were saying. (I think you can pin it on the Met Office’s John Mason if you like.)

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: 

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Japan

August 6, 1945 – Hiroshima

Seventy nine years ago, on this day, August 6th, 1945,

Hiroshima. Roughly 100,000 Japanese people killed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Americans were wondering about what to do about Japan. Number one, physical invasion (“Operation Olympic”) was going to be “mildly costly” let’s say, in terms of casualties. And number two, Stalin said he was coming into the Pacific War, three months after Germany’s surrender, and that three months was almost up. So if you can do something, do it quick. And crucially, Truman was well up for it. Attlee, who was UK Prime Minister by this time, was too – he later said that no one told him about the radioactive implications. They just told him it was a bigger bomb. 

What we should learn is, I suppose you can make a “moral” case for using an atomic bomb to kill 100,000 human beings, civilians. in Hiroshima, which was not a military target. I mean, how they’d already firestormed Tokyo. If you want to make that “moral” argument, go ahead and fill your boots. I think the one that you really can’t do that for is Nagasaki two days later.

 Fun fact – Kyoto was on a short list of four places to get nuked.

What happened next? Well, first we got the bomb. And that was good because we love peace and motherhood. Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s okay, because the balance of powers maintained that way. 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: 

August 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats #auspol #climate