Month: October 2024

Categories
Academia Media

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 1st, 2004 two academics write a crucial article about how the media works and is worked by denialists…

Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias

And the academic article is here

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the denialists had been able to get lots of their bullshit published in mainstream outlets, not on the basis of, you know, peer reviewed science or anything credible, but simply by using (or abusing if you want) the idea that the media has to show “both sides.” This is aside from the fact of who owns the media and what their long-term interests or short term interests are. And here we have a paper which lays that out by Boykoff and Boykoff. A good paper, you should read it. Unfortunately, it’s still largely relevant. And if you’re like me, he went through the naughties and teens writing to the BBC complaining about all the space given to nutjob denialists and getting the form response about BBCs responsibility for impartiality and giving both sides of an argument and then you would write back and say you don’t give Holocaust deniers equal billing. And then they wouldn’t reply to that. At least some of these people must have known better, but consider themselves blameless. Everyone is blameless. So it’s someone else’s fault.

What I think we can learn from this is that “our” systems of thought and truthiness have been successfully hacked.

What happened next: The denialists kept using the argument around impartiality and then complaining about censorship, etc. Some media outlets banned denialist comments from under the line. But on the whole, they didn’t. And the thing about climate change is it enrages so many people. And part of the reason it enrages is that humans are not on top. And another part for a lot of them is that they kind of by now know that they backed the wrong horse. And they hate the fact that the hippies were right and that they were wrong.

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/see also

Constantine Boussalis∗ and Travis G. Coan 2013 ‘Balance as Bias’ Revisited: Harnessing the Power of Text-Mining to Understand Media Coverage of Climate Change. March 30, 2013

McAllister et al. 2021. Balance as bias, resolute on the retreat? Updates & analyses of newspaper coverage in the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Canada over the past 15 years. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 16, Number 9 DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac14eb


Also on this day: 

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

Categories
Australia Denial Economics of mitigation

October 31, 2006 – Stern Review “pure speculation” according to John Howard

Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 31st, 2006, Australian Prime Minister John Howard dismisses the report on “The Economics of Climate Change” by former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern as “pure speculation”


,

Fraser, A. 2006. Greenhouse Report Pure Speculation, Says Howard. Canberra Times 1 November

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

The context was that Australia had just finally really woken up to climate change in September 2006. John Howard was beset on all sides and trying to fight back. At this point, he was probably still grumpy and resisting the idea of having to set up the Shergold Group Report. And so he took aim at the recently published Stern Review and called it pure speculation. 

What we learn is that a) people who are supposed to be responsible stewards of the future can be utter fools and that b) the species doesn’t know how to do concern about its own future. If it did, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Nothing in our cultural evolution in the West, at least the last 300 or 500 years or so has prepared us. And here we are. 

What happened next? Although Howard tried to do a pivot to save his skin it didn’t really convince anyone, probably not even himself. He got trolled by a senior ABC journalist on February 7. And he continued to sneer at Stern when Stern paid a flying visit in the first half of 2007. And of course, eventually, after leaving office, John Howard gave a talk to the Global Warming Policy Foundation or whatever it’s called that “one religion was enough.” 

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: 

October 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity

October 31, 2018 – Extinction Rebellion makes its declaration of rebellion

Categories
Cement and concrete

Concrete speculations – of climate, cement and hippies

It’s two hundred years and nine days since the patent for Portland cement was agreed. 

It went to a guy living not that far from where I now live.

Portland cement is THE cement.  It’s all around you, every day, one of the many things a modern person just takes for granted but would absolutely freak out anyone scooped up from 300 years ago.

We use a lot of it – 

“Geologists have calculated that since the 19th century, enough concrete has been produced to pour two pounds of it on every square yard of the Earth’s surface” (Schwägerl, 2024.)

And in doing so, we release a certain amount of carbon dioxide, one of the gases that traps heat from the Sun and is, how to put this, cooking the planet. (7% of man-made emissions, is the number people seem to agree on).

Here’s a graph from Our World in Data.


So, with COP93 (or thereabouts) in Baku coming up, there is the traditional flurry of articles in newspapers and magazines read by those who like to think of themselves as Concerned Citizens about the new technologies that will make everything okay.

The articles are sincere, well-written and well-researched.  Two I have read in the last 24 hours are here – 

And the Global Concrete and Cement Association will be fricking delighted (if I had more than two data points I’d make some concrete speculations on there being an actual deliberate campaign behind all this.

What does it all mean?  It means we as a species are in the shit, because we spent the last 36 years believing the sweet little lies that a tiny tax here, a nip and tuck there would, would suffice.  We derided the scientists as self-interested (somehow) and the hippies as eco-freak lunatics. Turns out though, that they were right. Oops.

I am doing a seminar – Carbon Capture Storage battles – past, present and near future (2025 to 2030) on Tuesday November 5th at 1pm. It’s free and open to anyone. More details, and registration are here. Or skip straight to the registration.

See also

On the UK and the issues around dispersed sites (most cement production is not in the “clusters”) see here.

and see also this

Anon, 2024. UltraTech Cement ties up with University of California for decarbonisation project. Business Line, October 25

Dateline: New Delhi
UltraTech Cement, an Aditya Birla Group company, has signed a collaboration agreement with the Institute for Carbon Management at the University of California, Los Angeles, to pilot a new technology- The Zero Carbon Lime (ZeroCAL)- developed by ICM that can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cement production.

Categories
Canada International processes

October 30, 1972 – Carroll Wilson writes to Maurice Strong, pondering networks

Fifty two years ago, on this day, October 30th, 1972 the Canadian oil baron who had sorted out the United Nations environment conference receives a letter (I know, “hold the front page” right?)

 In a letter to Maurice Strong, the chairman of the Stockholm conference, Carroll Wilson wondered “how and in what ways one might develop a kind of network of the rather limited number of key influential people in a certain number of countries around the world who are globally conscious and who have a vision extending to the end of this century and beyond and who have a deep concern for the environment in its broadest sense.” Wilson to Strong, October 30, 1972, Wilson papers, M.I.T. Archives, Box 44, File 1818.

 (Hart, David, 1992 Belfer thing)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Stockholm conference had happened. And the United Nations Environment Program had been created. There was a broader question of how to maintain or even increase momentum. What sorts of networks and communities might you need? Caroll Wilson, who’d been neck deep in organising the first study of man’s environmental impact in 1970 was clearly pondering the issues. And who better to talk with that Maurice Strong who had shepherded the Stockholm conference. 

What we learn is that in the aftermath of conferences there is talk about, “well, how do we sustain the momentum.” And here we are. And of course, if you try and have those conversations before, people are resistant because they just want their big moment of orgasm. And they don’t want to have to think about what comes next because they kind of on some level know that it will be a bust and you’ll be harshing their vibe, you’ll be spoiling things for them. Let them have their moment of pure, fat free content free reality free, splurge not to be cynical or anything. 

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: 

October 30, 1983 – Carl Sagan hosts ‘nuking ourselves would be bad’ conference.

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review published.

October 30, 2008 – a worker-greenie coalition? Maybe…

Categories
Europe International processes

October 29, 1990 – the Joint Council of Energy and Environment Ministers of the European Community decide to save the world.

On this day 34 years ago,

The Joint Council of the Energy and Environment Ministers of the member states of the European Community (EC) adopted a Council Decision at their meeting on October 29, 1990 concluding that, “the revision of energy and transportation policie1s to curb global carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere  should be one of the priority targets of the world.” They decided that CO2 emissions from the European Community should be stabilized by the year 2000 at 1990 levels, “although the Council notes that some member countries, according to their programmes, are not in a position to commit themselves to  this objective”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the world had “woken up” to the climate threat in 1988. An international treaty was supposed to be signed in mid-1992 at the already-scheduled “Earth Summit” about environment and development. The following week the Second World Climate Conference,, which was to be the unofficial start of the international climate negotiations, would begin in Switzerland, so the European Commission wanted to have some credibility for that..

What we learn

Fine words don’t butter so many parsnips, do they?

What happened next

Super-effective lobbying effort by big biz meant that no carbon tax was instituted. In 2005 a European Union Emissions Trading Scheme got underway.  ETS’s are preferred by bankers and consultants – more fees, more loopholes and dodges etc.  A carbon tax though according to economists, is “inefficient.”  So, there’s that…

Also on this day: 

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to help save planet. Does it? Of course it doesn’t.

October 29, 2004 – Aussie environmentalists win a court case…

Categories
Academia Carbon Capture and Storage

Free seminar on “CCS Battles past present and near future” – Tues Nov 5th at 1pm GMT

Hello everyone. I am doing another seminar in the Sussex Energy Group’s Energy & Climate series.

On Tuesday 5th November from 1300hrs to 1400. It is free to attend, you just have to register.

It is based on work I’ve been doing since my book (did I mention I have a book out?) and tries to gaze into the crystal ball to see what might be coming… Keen to hear people’s comments, questions, thoughts, critiques..

.

The blurb for the seminar is here

Carbon Capture and Storage has been proposed and nearly with us for two decades. The rationale has shifted from saving the coal industry to industrial purposes and now the production of ‘blue hydrogen’ and even greenhouse gas removals. It is currently in the midst of one of its periodic hype cycles.

The UK has had a series of proposed pilot projects, crashed competitions and a recently repeated promise of $22bn in funding for construction of CCS infrastructure. This has raised the political temperature, and the fragile consensus in favour of it may not survive. How much can the last 20 years tell us about the next 5? Drawing on his recent book and developments since it was written, Marc Hudson will offer:

  1. some metaphors for thinking about CCS (Schrodinger’s Cat and the T-1000 Terminator)
  2. a very brief overview of the history to date and present status – both globally and in the UK
  3. some possible scenarios around the politics, economics and physics for the UK in the coming 5 years
  4. a set of important tasks for “non-captured” intellectuals and academics in the coming months and years.

I will talk for no more than 30 minutes, meaning that there’s at least 25 minutes for question and answer

You can see my previous two SEG seminars, from 2022.

March 8 2002: – Industrial Decarbonisation: where does it come from, where might it go?

https://sussex.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Embed.aspx?id=a5f79422-ed15-4d08-8c3b-ae5200f9915e

September 27 2022: Dead and Buried: How Carbon Capture and Storage was brought back to life (again) – 

https://sussex.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=419d2d87-f39e-417d-8cb2-af25009f28c9

You can see the other stuff I have written about CCS here.

You can see the spreadsheet of recent articles (mostly but not entirely about the UK) and CCS here.

Categories
Agriculture Food United Kingdom

October 28, 1994 – UK agriculture and climate change workshop

Thirty years ago, on this day, October 28th, 1994, well, read it and weep

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 there was a Climate Action Network and it was trying to get scientists and agriculture people and so forth thinking about the long-term impacts of climate change. The UK had ratified the UNFCCC, which would have its first meeting soon. And you know, agriculture was going to have to learn to adapt.

What we learn is we’ve been talking about adaptation for a very long time. It will be interesting to see how we do. Badly, I expect.

What happened next. Defra spent more money on climate change programmes and all the rest of it. But it’s not clear to me that anything meaningful is being done particularly that I could be wrong. And here we are.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/impact-of-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss-on-food-security

Food security under pressure from climate change

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/03/disastrous-fruit-and-vegetable-crops-must-be-wake-up-call-for-uk-say-farmers

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/08/british-farmer-food-climate-crisis-business

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: 

October 28, 1906 – the birth of the Press Release

October 28, 1956 – New York Times reports “Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air”

Categories
Canada Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom United States of America

October 27, 2002 – International CCS study tour begins

Twenty two years ago, on this day, October 27th, 2002, some people fly off to the US and Canada.

Report of DTI International Technology Service Mission to the USA and Canada from 27th October to 7th November 2002

Carbon dioxide capture and storage : report of DTI International technology Service Mission to the USA and Canada from 27th October to 7th November 2002 / Advanced Power Generation Technology Forum ; Mission leader Nick Otter.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that CCS had been climbing the agenda for a few years, especially since it looked like the political negotiations around the Kyoto process were going nowhere. So you know, maybe throw your eggs in the technology basket and there were always these opportunities for nice conferences and PowerPoint slides and fun dinners and schmoozing. So it goes.

What we learn is that there’s always a new technology that’s going to save us. And that those technologies need “selling.”

What happened next, CCS started climbing in the popularity stakes. The Americans were throwing money at it with FutureGen. And then, years later, the Europeans and the Brits said that they were going to throw money at it. And here we are 23 years later. And how much C02 was actually being saved? Or stored? 

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: 

October 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

October 27, 1990 – denialist letter published (demolished days later)

Thirty four years ago, on this day October 27th 1990, a stupid denialist’s letter is published, forcing the Met Office boss John Houghton to respond

Sir: You published a letter (27 October) from Mr Hilary Lawson in which he casts doubts on the integrity of scientists involved in the assessment of global climate change. Mr Lawson has made allegations of this kind before, in particular in his Equinox programme ”The Great Greenhouse Conspiracy” broadcast on Channel 4. But, as Vicky Hutchings points out in an article in the New Statesman and Society (26 September) in which she exposes the inaccuracies of the Equinox programme, Mr Lawson provides no evidence for his allegations.

As chairman of the Scientific Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), I can assure Mr Lawson the assessment was not ”dominated by those who were already in the pro-global warming camp” but by scientists chosen solely for their expertise; most of them (myself included) would refuse to be described as belonging to any particular camp.

About half the 400 scientists (from more than 30 countries) who worked on the scientific assessment assisted in the preparation of the draft documents, the other half reviewed them. Therefore virtually every scientist in the world who has made significant contributions to the science of global climate change had a part in the generation of the assessment and a wide range of other scientists were involved in its approval. Despite the many discussions and hard arguments which took place, none of the 100 or so present at the final meeting dissented from the final text.

The IPCC assessment concludes first that ”we are certain that increased emissions of greenhouse gases will result in additional warming of the earth’s surface”. It estimates, on the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow on a ”business as usual” scenario, that global temperature will rise by about 0.3C per decade during the next century with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5C. Even if the lower figure is taken, the rate of change is likely to be greater than that which has occured on Earth at any time since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago.

These estimates of future climate change are mainly based on the results of the numerical models which integrate our knowledge of the dynamics and physics of the whole climate system. Mr Lawson alleges that the models are unable to reproduce accurately the current climate, let alone predict the future.

In Mr Lawson’s Equinox programme, in order to make this point, he misleadingly showed some very poor results of a Meteorological Office climate model produced some years ago when climate modelling was in its infancy. Global modelling has developed a great deal since then and models are now able to describe current climate with a large amount of skill. They have also been applied with some success to reproducing the climates which occurred during the last ice age. Although a lot of further development is required, we are confident that useful projections of future change can be provided.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN T. HOUGHTON

Chief Executive

Meteorological Office

Bracknell, Berkshire

30 October

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some ridiculous idiotic documentary had been made, saying that it was all a conspiracy. These sorts of things are inevitable because a lot of people love their conspiracies and are frankly dickheads. This was also in the context of the first IPCC report coming out.

What we learn is that dickheads gonna dickhead. And that people like John Houghton at the Met Office are going to have to spend time unpicking this, and the problem is a classic Gish Gallop – by the time you’ve explained why it’s all bullshit, people have lost interest. Gish gallop as a technique keeps getting used because it’s so effective. It’s up there with “technology will save us.” Ah, all the different ways people enjoy being lied to….

 What happened next, Houghton had first been talking about climate in like 1966, I think at a British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting. Anyway, Houghton had a stellar career.

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: 

October 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

Categories
United Kingdom

October 26, 2023 – Happy One Year birthday, Energy Act

One year ago, on this day, October 26th, 2023,

The biggest piece of energy legislation in the UK’s history has become law today (Thursday 26 October), laying the foundations for an energy system fit for the future.

The Energy Act 2023 has received Royal Assent and will transform the UK’s energy system by strengthening energy security, supporting the delivery of net zero and ensuring household bills are affordable in the long-term.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 423ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was, a year ago today, the Energy Act finally got royal assent, much delayed, all singing, all dancing, going to deliver X, Y and Zed for renewables and CCS and so forth. And here we are a year later, and what’s happened, dot dot dot. 

mark to fill in that a couple of weeks before the date itself. We’ve had an election but then who the fuck knows. But anyway, the usual what happened next isn’t really doable there. 

What I think we can learn from this – the wheels grind slowly, don’t they?

What happens next

There is now, thanks to the Energy Act a NESO. Of course there is –

Energy ministers have tasked the newly established National Energy System Operator with creating a strategic spatial plan that maps where net-zero infrastructure such as renewables generation and storage should be located across the UK

Mace, M. 2024. UK to publish ‘spatial plan’ to map clean energy infrastructure and cut project waiting times. Edie, October 22 https://www.edie.net/uk-to-publish-spatial-plan-to-map-clean-energy-infrastructure-and-cut-project-waiting-times/ 

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: 

October 26, 1975 – “The Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins…

October 26, 2001 – BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage mooted