Month: November 2024

Categories
United Kingdom United Nations

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly

Thirty-five years ago, on this day, November 8th, 1989, UK Prime Minister Thatcher speech to UN General Assembly

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 14 months previously, Margaret Thatcher had stunned everyone by making a speech about global warming to a gathering of the Royal Society in Oxford. And this had really moved the conversation on “the greenhouse effec”t and what to be about it onto a much higher level. But she’d actually committed the UK to very little despite her special one day Cabinet meeting about the greenhouse effect April 1989. And here, we have her making nice flowery speeches at the UNGA. 

What we learn is that she was a consummate politician. 

What happened next, a couple of days later, environmental analyst Tom Burke pointed out that there was “a hole in the policy layer”(which is quite a fun title, but you have to put it in the context of the ozone). And he pointed out that the UNGA speech had half an hour of flowery rhetoric, but nothing concrete, nothing specific. And so it came to pass that nothing specific or concrete was done. 

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: 

November 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
Australia

 November 7, 1997 – Australian governments bang heads in pre-Kyoto bash

Twenty-seven years ago, on this day, November 7th, 1997,

Climate change requires federal leadership and action, as acknowledged in the [NOVEMBER] 1997 Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth and State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment, which states:

The Commonwealth has a responsibility and an interest in relation to meeting the obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in co-operation with the States, through specific programmes and the developments and implementation of national strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and to protect and enhance greenhouse sinks.

(Ruddock, 2007: 183) 2.30 The COAG meeting of 7 November 1997 resulted in an in-principle endorsement of the Agreement on Commonwealth/State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment from all Heads of Government and the President of the Australian Local Government Association.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/1999-02/bio/report/c02

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia’s federal government had been doing all that it could to resist having to make any consequential commitment at the impending COP3 negotiations in Kyoto. It had been spitting the dummy for a year sending diplomats around the world to demand that Australia get special treatment. Not all state governments were on board with this. So for example, Bob Carr was much keener on climate action. But of course, state governments have relatively limited power….

What we learn is that not everyone is on the same page. That especially in a federal system, there are public differences of opinions, and especially private ones. 

What happened next? John Howard was successful, in that Australia got not only a108% “reduction” target, but also managed to ram through a clause about land clearing that turned that into a de facto but not de jure 130% “reduction” target. Just naked greed and duplicity, and fuck these people. 

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: 

November 7, 1973 – Energy security avant la Ukraine: Nixon announces “Project Independence”

November 7, 2000 – Australian “The Heat is on” report released

November 7, 2022 – journalist covering JSO protest arrested

Categories
Australia

November 6, 2001 – Howard plays the jobs-card vs Kyoto in Hunter Valley

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, November 6th, 2001 days before the election,

CANBERRA, Nov 6 AAP – The government today chose an industrial heartland to warn that Labor’s promise to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change would cost jobs and harm the economy.

Prime Minister John Howard toured the industry-rich Hunter Valley area north of Sydney to sell his message that ratifying the agreement would cost jobs, pump up petrol and power prices and hurt industry.

The comments came on the eve of a high-level meeting in Morocco tomorrow night when officials from around the globe will debate the finer points of ratifying the protocol…. 

Modelling quoted widely by the coalition was based on inaccurate assumptions that unrealistically inflated the costs of meeting Australia’s targets, opposition environment spokesman Nick Bolkus said.

2001 McSweeny, L., Polglaze, K. and Hamilton, F. 2001. Fed – Govt warns of job losses under ALP Kyoto plan. Australian Associated Press, 7 November.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard was using the old line about jobs to defend his mates in the fossil fuel sector, even though as a whole mining did not provide that many jobs primarily or secondarily, especially when it comes to open cast. 

What we learn is that it’s all Jobsngrowth, Jobsngrowth. The reliable standbys when talking to the electorate, just as technology is the standby when talking to society more generally. 

What happened next, Howard had another six years of mayhem and the Hunter is still coal central despite what it’s doing to all the other sectors, whether it’s tourism or agriculture, or what, or horse-racing.

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: 

November 6, 1988 – Australian cartoonist nails response to #climate change

November 6, 1989 – Noordwijk conference – “alright, we will keep talking”

November 6, 1990 – Second World Climate Conference underway

November 6, 2009 – Kevin Rudd playing politics with the climate

Categories
Energy United Kingdom

November 5, 2014 – Vince Cable and the Energy Trilemma

Ten years ago, on this day, November 5th, 2014, Vince Cable splashes the cash on the Energy Trilemma

A £14 million fund to help businesses develop new products and technologies to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy security and reduce costs was announced by Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Vince Cable.

The fund will encourage companies to invest in technologies which help to meet our future energy needs in a more environmentally friendly way, while at the same time boosting economic growth.

In a separate competition, Innovate UK are also making £5 million available to increase research and development and fund feasibility studies to reduce the environmental impact of extracting and using fossil fuels. It will help develop innovative technologies to take advantage of the changing energy landscape and make £1 million specifically available for feasibility studies led by small businesses.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said;

We are facing a trilemma. As well as reducing emissions and improving energy security, we need to reduce costs for energy users. Governments have their role to play, but we also need there to be investment by businesses in innovation to develop new products and technologies.

We are making £14 million available to encourage that investment and make sure that British companies have help to tackle this challenge.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberal Democrats had chosen to go into a coalition government with fucking Tories. Because Nick Clegg was a Tory on everything but Europe. And they quite liked the idea of limousines and red ministerial boxes. And here’s Vince Cable banging on about the energy trilemma. The context being that David Cameron had already decided to “cut all the green crap.” And there were the typical Treasury tussles over funding on anything that couldn’t pay for itself within five minutes. 

What we learn is that smart people are understandably seduced by power because they want to make their mark, get something done, change the system from within, etc. 

What happened next? The Tories since 2015 have been governing in their own right, thanks to the infinite wisdom of the British electorate, and everything has turned to shit. Literally, in the case of rivers, the state is being looted, and the earth is being assaulted. And the young can be grateful that catastrophic climate change is going to mean that they don’t have to spend 70-80 years enduring this. 

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: 

November 5, 1969 – House of Lords question about the greenhouse effect

November 5, 1992 – Jeremy Leggett calls Australian petrol price cuts “insane”

November 5, 1997 – Global Climate Coalition co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference

Categories
Australia

November 4, 1999 – Australians have highest per capita emissions

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, November 4th, 1999,

a report by The Australia Institute on Australians having highest per capita emissions is front page news for the Melbourne.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia was built as a settler colony, and was burning enormous quantities of shitty coal, especially in Victoria, where they had basically limitless brown coal, which is filthy on so many levels.

And it’s hardly a surprise that Australia had the highest per capita emissions given the shittiness of their houses, the sources of their energy. Btw transport is not really that big a factor, because, despite the myth, most Australians don’t cover long distances. They are mostly huddled in various cities on the coast. There’s the myths that we like to tell ourselves and then there’s the reality. 

What we learn is that you can tell Australians that they’re causing planetary mayhem as much as you like. It won’t change anything.

What happened next, Australia’s per capita emissions continued to be berserk and are down unto this day.

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: 

November 4, 1988 – no quick fix on climate, warns Australian Environment Minister

November 4, 1991 – UK Government launches first of many blame-shifting publicity campaigns on #climate

November 4, 2006 – Australians “Walk against Warming”

Categories
United States of America

November 3, 1916 -measurement of ice flow shows climate change

One hundred and eight years ago, on this day, November 3rd, 1916,

But let’s go way back to Nov. 3, 1916, courtesy of Google News’s archive search, where we’ll see a story in the Hartford (Conn.) Courant headlined, “Fossil Rocks in Canada Studied.” The subhead under the headline reads, in part, “Measurement of Ice Flow Shows Climate Change.” https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0908/why-are-they-calling-it-climate-change-now

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 302ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the earth seemed to be warming up. And this was quite possibly just some sort of natural fluctuation. Carbon dioxide is only in the normal order of things, one among many, many factors. Before the denialists leap on this, I would say that since the 1800s, it has not been a normal run of things, because we have been putting so much fossil fuel residue into the atmosphere. It wasn’t the Industrial Revolution so much as the Fossil Fuel Revolution.

What we learn is that from very early in the 20th century, people were saying there was a slight warming (possibly cyclical). Then by the late 1930s, the Arctic was visibly warming. There’s reports on that in various newspapers. And then by 1951. Rachel Carson was talking about it in her book, “The world beneath us”.

What happened next? We kept burning fossil fuels. And the emissions kept climbing. Be interesting to know if Svante Arrhenius saw this, or said anything more after his 1896 piece of work? Did he keep a folder saying the earth is warming? Was it the sort of thing that Guy Callendar was looking at?

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: 

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

November 3, 2000 – Australian denialists get American scientist to testify about Kyoto Protocol, smear IPCC

Categories
Coal Upcoming events

Upcoming event: “The Coal in Violence” – Andreas Malm, Thurs Nov 7, 6pm, London

So, presumably a Swedish journalist travelling around British coal fields in the 1920s and wondering about global warming will have been influenced by Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish scientist who’d done the calculations about what carbon dioxide build-up would mean in 1895 as a way of distracting himself from a messy divorce.

But maybe not. Maybe Lotka (see footnote)? In any case, all will be revealed by Andreas Malm (for it is he), this coming Thursday, in Bloomsbury, London.

Text and image below copied and pasted from the website of the Social History Society.

6.00pm, Followed by a wine reception

Andreas Malm, author of How to Blow Up A Pipeline: learning to fight in a world on fire, discusses British histories of coal intertwined with Swedish working-class literature in the 2024 Raphael Samuel Memorial Lecture.

In 1928, a young Ivar Lo Johansson, soon to become the leading Swedish working-class novelist, published what might have been the first consistently dire warning about the climatic effects of large-scale coal combustion. It was included in a book of reportage about life in the British coal districts. What led Lo Johansson to his precocious prediction? This lecture will trace the intersecting paths of subaltern wilderness politics and early climate science in the Swedish movement of working-class literature in general and the works of Lo Johansson in particular.

Andreas Malm is associate senior professor of human ecology at Lund University, Sweden. His latest books, both out from Verso in October, are The Destruction of Palestine Is the Destruction of the Earth and, written with Wim Carton, Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown.

For information contact Katy Pettit k.pettit@bbk.ac.uk

Book via Eventbrite

And back to All Our Yesterdays text.

  1. Hat-tip to the Morning Star‘s excellent “what’s on” listing, inevitably called “The Red List.”)

2. That Lotka thing? See this from 1983.

Categories
Activism Australia United Kingdom

November 2, 1994 – Greenpeace vs climate risk for corporates…

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 2nd, 1994,

 Greenpeace trying to attack market perceptions of energy companies

GREENPEACE has launched a strong campaign to show that market perceptions of energy companies are overblown and do not take into account the potential impact of climate change.

The environmental organisation said yesterday that climate change presented major long term risks to the carbon fuel industry which were not adequately discounted in financial analysis.

Quoting a report released in London, Greenpeace said global warming was a long term risk to investors in the carbon fuel industry.

Wilson, N. (1994) CARBON PAPER’S CLIMATE RISK WARNING The Australian Financial Review 3rd November [this while their Redbank case was still pending – decision came down a week later]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been banging on about the Climate Time Bomb [LINK] . The first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties was due to take place in another four months in Berlin. And Greenpeace was trying to rally the “responsible” and responsive within the capitalist sector to show up in every sense, especially the reinsurance industry. This is an entirely sensible tactic. I think it didn’t work, but that’s hardly Greenpeace’s fault. 

What we learn is that capitalism is by no means a monolith. Intrasectoral and intersectoral battles are always going on. Groups like Greenpeace will try and enlist and mobilise, which you can call cowardly or you can call sensible – it depends how you’re feeling, I guess. None of it worked, many of us are gonna die messily and soon. 

What happened next? COP1 happened. Insurance and reinsurance groups turned up for day one and then went home. The oil executives stuck around. Guess who won. And you can read more about this in Jeremy Leggett’s the Carbon War. 

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: 

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

Categories
United Kingdom

November 2, 1957 – “Our Coal Fires are melting the poles” Birmingham Post

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, November 2nd, 1957, it was laid out, simply

Douglas, T.S. 1957. Our Coal Fires are Melting the Poles. Birmingham Post & Gazette, November 2

Compare this with the Los Angeles Times, May 19, the same year…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year was underway, but there had also been a meeting in Toronto of the geodesy people….  And maybe the Birmingham post was picking up on that. 

What we learn is that the idea of CO2 build up causing catastrophe was well-established by then. And what else we learn is that if you really understand the history, you can see where seemingly random shit comes from, perhaps. 

What happened next. Charles David Keeling started taking his measurements in Hawaii the following year. Roger Revelle started working within the bureaucracy. Lyndon Johnson said it in 1965. But it would be another many decades before a US president would take any of this seriously. 

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock