Month: September 2024

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 18, 2004 – Australian States back ETS plan

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 18th, 2004, the Melbourne Age had the following report on page 3

The Victorian Government and other states are close to finalising a plan for a groundbreaking greenhouse gas emissions trading system to curb pollution caused by industry.

Flagging a major Government focus on the environment, renewable energy and sustainability over the next five years, Premier Steve Bracks said Victoria would take a leadership role in pushing the model.

While the plan is yet to be finalised, it is likely that it would cap companies’ greenhouse gases. If companies exceeded their cap, they would have to buy credits from other companies….

Gray, D. 2004. States Push Emissions Trading Plan. The Age, 18 September, p. 3

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 after the defeat of a straightforward Carbon Tax in 1995, attention had turned to various emissions trading schemes, which had the added benefit of helping banks get rich. And economists could argue about which particular iteration was the most “efficient”, all the while ignoring the fact that these systems will be gamed. There’ll be loopholes, there will be grandfathering clauses, etc. Anyway, there have been two efforts to get the federal Emissions Trading Scheme and Prime Minister John Howard had successfully defeated two proposals for an emissions trading scheme. In 2000, Nick Minchin had been his point man, and then 2003 he had done it literally all by himself. So it was fairly obvious that if you wanted an emissions trading scheme, you’re gonna have to do it so-called “bottom up” with each state, coming up with its own, but then there being transferability and interoperability. And one of the champions for this was Bob Carr, who was still the New South Wales premier (had been since 1995). And here, they were saying that they were going to make it happen. [I don’t know why they didn’t. Did the Federales step in and tell them to go up themselves? That would be a good question to try and answer.] 

What we learn is that good ideas and semi-good ideas and wretched ideas are hard to kill off. Especially if they go with the grain of neoliberalism and are going to make some people very rich.

What happened next. The states’ scheme came to nothing. Kevin Rudd, as Labor Opposition Leader, started talking up an ETS, forcing Howard to do the same. Then the horrors of 2008 to 2012…

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: 

September 18, 2013 – Greenpeace try to occupy the “Arctic Sunrise.”

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

Categories
United States of America

September 17, 1987 – Policymakers turn from Ozone to Greenhouse, says Wall Street Journal

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1987,

Policy Makers Spurred by Ozone Treaty, Considering Tackling ‘Greenhouse’

Effect, WALL ST. J., Sept. 17, 1987

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ozone treaty had just been signed. Climate scientists were seriously worried about the buildup of CO2. The September 1985 scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, sponsored by WMO UNEPand ICSU had been pivotal. And since then, US Senators had been alerted repeatedly by Carl Sagan, by NGO briefings. Joe Biden had got in on the act in the run up to his first bid for president.

What we learn is that it’s one thing to deal with a chemical that not many companies make and for which there are substitutes. IT’s somewhat more problematic when you have the whole fossil fuel sector arrayed against you and its pals in the automotive industry. 

What happened next was a God Almighty battle for five years and the forces of predatory delay were successful and continued to be successful, and still being successful in 2024… 

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: 

September 17, 1969 – trying to spin Vietnam, Moynihan starts warning about #climate change

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

September 17, 2002 – UK Government announces feasibility study into Carbon Capture and Storage

Categories
Nuclear Power

September 17, 1954 – nuclear electricity will be too cheap to meter

Seventy years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1954 the head of the Atomic Energy Commission proclaimed that there would come a time when nuclear power would provide electricity too cheap to meter.

Transmutation of the elements, — unlimited power, ability to investigate the working of living cells by tracer atoms, the secret of photosynthesis about to be uncovered, — these and a host of other results all in 15 short years. It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter — will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history,— will travel effort­lessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, — and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.”

Lewis Strauss speech on electrical energy being “too cheap to meter” – http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2009/09/too-cheap-to-meter-nuclear-quote-debate.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that nuclear energy was going to provide a useful adjunct to nuclear weapons. And one way that you get people enthused despite their fears of shit blowing up is by promising them that the electricity produced will be too cheap to meter. And so it came to pass…

What we learn – in the upswing of the hype cycle, statements that look absurd in retrospect get made.

What happened next it turns out nuclear power was never too cheap to metre. There were the inevitable cost overruns. There was the fight back by the coal industry. There was Three Mile Island which was not actually the thing that killed the nuclear power industry. The order book was pretty empty before then. I should probably watch Silkwood again.

What do we learn? Yeah, that hype happens. 

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: 

September 17, 1969 – trying to spin Vietnam, Moynihan starts warning about #climate change

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

September 17, 2002 – UK Government announces feasibility study into Carbon Capture and Storage

Categories
Australia

September 16, 1969 – Aussies warned about carbon dioxide build-up by top scientist

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 16th, 1969,

Call to keep world at 2,000m

MELBOURNE, Monday. — The world population should be adjusted and maintained at perhaps 2,000 million, distinguished scientist Sir Macfarlane Burnet said today.

It was one of five minimum requirements that he set down for a “stable human eco-system” or an harmonious world.

Sir Macfarlane was delivering a paper at the Felton Bequests Symposium at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in Melbourne.

Sir Macfarlane said the other requirements included a stabilisation of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to avoid the possibility of disastrous climatic change.

The theme of the symposium was the influence of scientific advances on the future of mankind. It was arranged by the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in honour of Sir Macfarlanc’s 70th birthday.

Anon, 1969. Call to keep world at 2000m. Canberra Times, 16 September, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Burnet and other Australian scientists were obviously extremely well plugged into the international networks especially around UNESCO which was acting as a key scientific source of information. Burnett was giving a talk to the great and the good because he was one of the great and the good. 

What we learn is that the great and the good heard it from the horse’s mouth. They heard it from a responsible extremely high status source. And were still able to dismiss it as “nothing to worry about.” Well, that’s not entirely fair. Some of them did freak out, like the Commonwealth Bank guy in Adelaide in 1970. 

What happened next. The scientific warnings got stronger. The CO2 emissions kept going up. The atmospheric concentrations went up. The temperatures went 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.

Also on this day: 

September 16, 1969 – Nobel-prize winning Australian scientist warns about carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1969

September 16, 2015 – Turns out big companies are ‘climate hypocrites’?

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Norway

September 15, 1996 – A CCS posterchild is born: Sleipner Field comes online.

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, September 15th, 1996, a crucial part of the CCS publicity campaign came into existence.

The Sleipner Vest (West) field is used as a facility for carbon capture and storage (CCS).[1][8][9] It is the world’s first offshore CCS plant, operative since September 15, 1996.[10][11] The project, in the initial year, proved insecure due to sinking top sand.[10] However, after a re-perforation and an installation of a gravel layer in August 1997, CCS operations were secure.[10] As of 2018, one million tonnes of CO2 have been transported and injected into the formation yearly since 1996.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1991, the Norwegian government had passed a carbon tax. And this gave an incentive for the state owned oil company, Statoil, (the clue is in the name) to set up injection of CO2 into a depleted North Sea oil and gas field known as Sleipner. Also, the oil and gas they were extracting had high CO2 anyway, so they were going to need to ‘sweeten’ it anyway.

And this is really the poster child for CCS alleged as a proof of concept and is still being trotted out as “CCS works” almost 30 years later.

What we learn is that government policy can drive innovation and corporate behaviour if it’s well-designed with few loopholes, one or two incentives, etc. And it’s within the corporate skill set and their imaginations and so, it came to pass.

What happened next. Sleipner Field kept getting used as the poster child for CCS for the next 30 years because there are precious few other actually successful projects that bear much scrutiny: looking at Kemper, looking at you Boundary Dam, looking at you Gorgon. 

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: 

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra

September 15, 1982/1990 – “Environmental Justice” is born. And so is Captain Planet…

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 14, 1994 – Business told to brace for climate regulation/tax (which it then handily defeats)

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14th, 1994

CANBERRA NOTEBOOK

Industry can expect tougher government action as a result of publication in the past week of Australia’s first inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. The Environment Minister, Senator John Faulkner, says he is working on a range of measures to take to Cabinet by December to help cut Australia’s gas emissions in line with international obligations.

Hooper, N. 1994. Greenhouse Action. BRW, 19 September, p.14.

and

A carbon tax, which could have a significant impact on Australia’s resources sector, will be examined as part of the Federal Government’s business tax reforms.

While it is not one of the Ralph report recommendations, a paper has been prepared by Treasury that is expected to be used by the Government when it begins negotiations with the Australian Democrats on the business tax reform package.

In negotiations to secure approval for the Government’s landmark business tax reforms, the Democrats are expected to push for a more systematic approach to Australia’s commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto targets. This might involve a tax on emissions or other measures, such as greenhouse credits for tree plantations.

Dodson, L. and Lewis, S. 1999. Government puts carbon tax on agenda. The Australian Financial Review, 14 September, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Businesses told that they can expect regulation, that they should brace for it. 

The context was that the carbon tax idea that had been promulgated, put forward in the late 80s, early 90s And then defeated was on its way back. It seemed John Faulkner who was the Environment Minister for Keating was proposing attacks that would raise some funds, needed funds for Treasury and also pay for a little bit of research and development of solar power. Business knew that business groups would fight very hard; but they were realistic that things could go wrong and that they might end up with regulation or taxation. This of course might also have been a warning in order to whip up more interest and finance from potentially affected groups, so the troops were energised; who can say. 

What we can learn is that business fights dirty and hard, obvs.

What happened next Business won that round, and almost all of the rounds to follow. 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: 

 September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

September 14, 2004 – Blair “shocked” by scientists warnings – “time is running out for tackling climate change”

Categories
Science Scientists Sea level rise United States of America

September 13, 1984 – unsettling Seattle workshop on sea level rise

Forty years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1984

Glaciers, ice sheets and sea level : effect of a CO2-induced climatic change : report of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington, September 13-15, 1984

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by now, CO2 build-up and its close cousin sea level rise were well embedded in environmental science in the United States. The EPA, the year before, had produced a big fat report. And this workshop, I guess it’s a continuation of that. 

What we learn is that our scientists have been warning us about sea level rise with graphs and numbers since the early 1980s. And without necessarily all those graphs and numbers since the 1950s. 

What happened next, scientists kept sciencing and the rapid increase in temperature and warmth of the planet led in 1988 to James Hansen giving his famous testimony to the Senate committee in June 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: 

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

Categories
United Kingdom

September 13, 1661 – Fumifugium!

Three hundred sixty four years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1661,

“Whilst Evelyn is most celebrated for his journals documenting the plague and the Great Fire of London, Fumifugium has been widely recognised as one of the first rational, reasoned and scientific accounts of pollution (Jenner, 1995; Sinclair, 1973). It was a campaigning pamphlet that was presented to King Charles II on 13th September 1661 soon after the King’s coronation in April of that year”

(Atkins & McBride: 1267-8)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 270ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that London was becoming unbearably polluted. My goodness, how times change! Everyone was using filthy sea coal, as it was called, for heating their houses and so forth. And here was an air pollution rant delivered to the king. This was of course just after Cromwell had died and the king had come back. 

What we learn here Is that “please do something mighty majesty” style activism has a long history. We’re still doing it today when we’re tugging at the sleeve of regulatory agencies, even though they’ve been captured, or parties, even though they’ve been captured, and even corporations, even though they’re capitalists and raptors. 

What happened next? London’s air quality magically improved. And no, it didn’t. And then there’s a whole stream of Apocalypse literature in the late 19th century, about the London fogs just getting worse and worse. And then finally in 1952, thanks to a temperature inversion a whole lot of people died in a prolonged smog event. You can either say it was 4000, which was the estimate at the time, but later estimates say 11000. And that opened the door to a new Clean Air Act (1956) There had been many before. And despite the best efforts of the Conservative government and Macmillan’s “Macmillan manoeuvre.” The Clean Air Act had some teeth and some impact and drove policy innovation and a certain amount of technological innovation. And at least the visible quality of London became less shit. Whether the invisible (2.5ppms) got much better, is another interesting question. 

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

Atkins, J. * McBride, K. 2021 “Fumifugium: Or the inconvenience of the Aer and Smoake of London Dissipated”: emancipatory social accounting in 17th century London. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal Vol. 35 No. 5, 20 pp. 1262-1286

Also on this day: 

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

Categories
Australia

September 12, 1994 – Greenpeace lays into Keating government over climate failure

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 12th, 1994, a nice article by a Greenpeace policy guy explains what is at stake. Is ignored, of course.

The Federal Government this week conceded that its current policies will not meet our international commitments to cut greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by 2005. The practical solutions needed to meet these targets are available, in the form of energy efficiency, solar power and public transport. What is missing is the political will to implement them.

Tarlo, K. 1994. Time to grasp greenhouse nettle. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September, p15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been banging on about climate change for a while. They had had a severe bust in their finance because people didn’t renew their membership in 1991-92 because the whole green issue seemed to have gone away after the Gulf War. They’d done a nice advert about Bush senior during his 1992 Australia visit and had also been doing legal challenges to new coal fired power stations without much success. 

And here was Keating shitting on climate policy, calling greenhouse an “amorphous issue”.

Anyway, the specific context was that Keating’s Environment Minister John Faulkner was proposing a carbon tax with the money to be spent on things like energy efficiency and solar energy r&d. 

What we learn is that you just have to stay in the game when the good times pass, but you just have to stay in the game. Keep your capacity to act going. Greenpeace managed it. Grassroots groups, not so much…

What happened next? Greenpeace kept going. Faulkner’s Carbon Tax died in February 1995. Keating was toast in ‘96. 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: 

September 12, 1958 – Letter in The Times about … carbon dioxide build-up

 September 12, 2003 – Newcastle Herald thinks the future of coal looks ‘cleaner’…

Categories
Australia

September 11, 2006 – Australian climate concern hits tipping point (maybe)

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 11th, 2006 former Vice-President Al Gore was on a flying visit to Australia. Australian writer Murray Hogarth in his The Third Degree” book claims it as ‘the day’ everything changed (i.e. the climate issue broke through)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that concern/activism about Australia, and its potential vulnerability to permanent and escalating climate change had been building for a while. This was partly because of the Millennium Drought. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth had come out. In April a bunch of businesses – Westpac et al – had had another go at saying that John Howard did not have a monopoly on what business wanted. And then in the summer, well, obviously there’d been the UK Climate Camp, which got some global coverage. There were serious moves afoot in the UNFCCC and it was clear that Bush’s and Howard’s technology focus spoiler organisations were inadequate. And along came Al Gore for a flying visit. And according to Murray Hogarth, in his short book, “The Third Degree” this was the straw that broke the camel’s back and gave Australia its big wave of climate concern. 

What we learn is that there will be sort of straw that breaks the camel’s back or a spark that sets off the fire, but it’s usually a long time coming.

What happened next. Labor’s Kevin Rudd surfed the wave to topple Liberal John Howard, and then because Rudd screwed the pooch between 2008 and 2010, his deputy, Julia Gillard had to take over and clean up the mess (which she did, though it didn’t last). 

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: 

September 11, 1961 – New York Times reports “Air Found Gaining in Carbon Dioxide”

September 11, 1973 – CIA coup topples Chilean democracy