Month: December 2024

Categories
Activism Uncategorized United Kingdom

December 31, 2022 – We Quit, says some group everyone has forgotten about.

Two years ago, on this day, December 31st, 2022,

We Quit statement by Extinction Rebellion

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 419ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that XR had been in the usual death spiral of diminishing returns. That happens to all overblown and overambitious social movement organisations who don’t understand that they’re a symptom rather than a cause. And so in order to grab a little bit more attention and try and stitch together a wider coalition or be part of a wider coalition, they made this clickbaity announcement that they were “quitting.” All they were quitting was the disruptive stuff, which was being taken on by Just Stop Oil anyway. 

What we learn is, well, have a look at this article I wrote in the Conversation, then tell me I’m wrong. 

What happened next? They didn’t get 100,000 people on a day or anywhere near it. And the main thing in my inbox from Extinction Rebellion is stuff I already knew and emails pleading for more money.

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: 

December 31, 1997 – Government slags off Australian Conservation Foundation

December 31, 2012 – Murdoch employee throws predictable inaccurate shite at Greens…

December 31, 2022 – FT publishes letter about Thatcher and Just Stop Oil

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

December 30, 1997 –  “How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect?” asks deeply unserious economics hack

Twenty six years ago, on this day, December 30th, 1997

How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect – how fast is the world’s temperature rising, and how important is it that we should take precautionary measures, and of what kind? How much should we spend now, given the uncertainties of the whole issue? And how, or on whom, should we spend? 

1997 MCGuinness on ‘environmentalist propaganda’ McGuinness, P. 1997. Running risks of global warming. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 December, p.6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people have been talking about Australia’s “national interest” and climate change and limits to carbon for a long time because the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol had been going on all year. And here’s Paddy McGuinness, a libertarian economist who had given aid and comfort to the Centre for Independent Studies recycling his bullshit, and refusing to actually think that gosh, he and his beloved ideology might be wrong. 

What we learn is stupid people gonna stupid, especially if their stupidity gets them a seat at the top table, and helps make rich people stay rich/get richer. They need useful idiots in the war of ideas. 

What happened next? Well, McGuinness died, which is why I can speak freely about him. 

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: 

December 30, 1957 – a letter from Gilbert Plass to Guy Callendar

December 30, 1976 – President Jimmy Carter is lobbied about #climate change

December 30, 2006 – “Industry snubs climate strategy”

December 30, 2007 – Bert Bolin dies.

Categories
Russia State Violence

December 29, 1999 – Russian sub commander turned eco-whistleblower is acquitted.

On this day, December 1999,  twenty-five years ago, a Russian submarine commander who blew the whistle on dodgy storage of submarines was acquitted.

29 Dec  1999 – The charges were, however, not dropped. Nikitin first stood trial in October 1998, when the Saint Petersburg City Court rejected the evidence against him. But rather than acquitting him, the Court sent the case back to the FSB for additional investigation. The Supreme Court of Russia confirmed this decision in February 1999, and the FSB filed new charges in July 1999.

The second trial started at the Saint Petersburg City Court in November 1999, and ended on 29 December with a full acquittal 

(though the prosecutors tried to get further bites at the cherry). 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that militaries all around the world are enormous polluters and are able to escape scrutiny by either saying “national security” or impugning the patriotism (sic) of investigators/critics.

What we can learn is that speaking up is risky, and the State (or corporates) like to make examples – the modern day equivalent of sticking heads on pikes…

What happened next. According to Wikipedia

Nikitin is still engaged in environmental and human rights issues in Russia. He is the head of Bellona Foundation’s Saint Petersburg branch, and is engaged in environmental and nuclear safety projects, as well as in human rights cases.

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: 

December 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

Categories
Media Science Scientists United States of America

December 29, 1972 – Schneider meets Sullivan

Fifty two years ago, on this day, December 29th, 1972,

In Baltimore in December 1972 I gave a talk on the issue of human weather control to the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). AAAS meetings are internationally known because they bring together research scientists and policy makers to discuss the societal implications of new knowledge…. After speaking for half an hour or so, on how various kinds of human activities could change the climate, I concluded that, unfortunately, only a relatively few people were aware of the possibilities. I then quipped: “Nowadays, everybody is doing something with the weather, but nobody is talking about it.”

At the front of the audience, a distinguished-looking gentleman was taking notes: he turned out to be the doyen of all science writers, Walter Sullivan of the New York Times….

Sullivan, W. 1972. Goals for US Urged on Weather Control. New York Times, Dec 29, p.50.

(Schneider, 1989: 200)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Stephen Schneider is perhaps being a little naive here, because he’d already made headlines the previous year, thanks to a paper that he had co-written that had talked about the possibility of an ice age thanks to all the dust and smoke that was being put up. That paper turned out to be wrong and was used as a club by denialists to hit Schneider over the head with it for the rest of his life. Because that’s who they are. As for Sullivan, he had been aware of the CO2 possibility at the latest 1961 but much more likely, by 1957; he had after all written a book about the International Geophysical Year. 

What we learn is that by the early 1970s carbon dioxide buildup as a problem was getting more attention. There had been an article earlier the same year in May I want to say 1972 in The New York Times. There was of course by now, the United Nations Environment Program setting up shop. 

What happened next: The carbon dioxide build-up issue kept getting random reports all through the 1970s. Only in 1988 did it finally punch through.

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: 

December 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

December 28, 2002 –  Renewable Energy vs John Howard, round 55ish…

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, December 28th, 2002

RENEWABLE Energy Generators of Australia Limited has dismissed as flawed a recent government report, saying it would lead to the abandonment of renewable energy developments

Hobart Mercury (2002) Report on renewable energy `flawed’. 28th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1997, John Howard had – in the run up to the Kyoto COP – promised a 2% renewable energy target for Australia. He had slowed that process down as much as humanly possible. In the end, a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target had come in, in April of 2001. And started working. And then of course, another Howard acolyte launched a review that threw the whole thing into doubt. And here we have small trade association trying to point this out, getting a hearing and that leads to Hobart Mercury, and maybe elsewhere. Possibly of interest to Hobart, in Tasmania, because that’s just at this point Vestas must have been deep in the planning of starting its factory. 

What we learn is that trade associations for new sectors struggle, because they don’t have many member companies. And those companies tend to be small and poor. And incumbents have better lobbyists, better connections, and it can be a real uphill battle. And often these little trade associations fall apart under lack of money and lack of personnel and all the rest of it. 

What happened next 

Howard successfully made life so hellish for renewables that his preferred options – coal, LNG – dominated throughout his reign. (Vestas pulling the plug in 2005 etc etc)

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: 

December 28, 1978 – fly the plane. Don’t keep tapping the fuel light.

December 28, 1994 – Australian Financial Review says “say yes to Tradeable Emissions Quotas”

Categories
Australia

December 27, 2004 – ACF boss says “cough up”

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 27th, 2004,

How do we make people more aware of the accelerating problems of climate change? The Australian Conservation Foundation’s new president says we must make them pay for their damage – literally

Clarke, D. (2004) NEW CONSERVATION CHIEF Climate controller The Advertiser 27th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Federal government had once again said no to an emissions trading scheme. And the states we’re talking about bottom up. Meanwhile, the Australian Conservation Foundation, which had been banging on about how a carbon tax would be a Good Idea for 15 years, had a new president. And although the times were inauspicious Howard had been given another three years, you always have to propose your ideas even if they’re seemingly out of time and unpopular.

What happened next various other business groupings surfaced, trying to talk about climate and carbon pricing. The most consequential of these probably was the April 2006 effort with Westpac and so forth. And then, of course, when Kevin Rudd came along, carbon pricing took off. 

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: 

December 27, 1989 – Greenhouse effect = “socialist hokum”

December 27, 2009 – Art exhibition in Copenhagen saves the world

Categories
Antarctica

December 26, 2019 – Antarctic journeys…

Five years ago, on this day, December 26th, 2019, 

On December 26, 2019, Erin Pettit trudged across a plain of glaring snow and ice, dragging an ice-penetrating radar unit the size of a large suitcase on a red plastic sled behind her. The brittle snow crunched like cornflakes underneath her boots—evidence that it had recently melted and refrozen following a series of warm summer days. Pettit was surveying a part of Antarctica where, until several days before, no other human had ever stepped. A row of red and green nylon flags, flapping in the wind on bamboo poles, extended into the distance, marking a safe route free of hidden, deadly crevasses. The Thwaites Ice Shelf appeared healthy on the surface. But if that were the case, Pettit wouldn’t have been there. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarcticas-collapse-could-begin-even-sooner-than-anticipated/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 412ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

We are forever doing impact science, while the production science kills us all. So it goes.

What I think we can learn from this

Brave people have gathered the data.  Lazy and scared people (including myself) don’t make the data matter.

What happened next

The emissions kept climbing, obvs.

Categories
Uncategorized

December 25, – the White Christmas myth…

Merry Christmas/Atheistmas. Have a read of this – “How Dickens Made Christmas White”

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181217-how-dickens-made-white-christmas-a-myth

The context was it turns out that white is not normal. To conceive of white as the normal, everything else as a disappointment is simply wrong. Am I talking about white supremacism and the normative bias around that? Well, yes, of course I am. But I’m also talking about the idea of a white Christmas – that it would snow on Christmas Day. Enough for postcards and all that. And the amazing thing is that you can #BlameDickens. There’s a really good article See, link here, pointing out that when Dickens was writing in the 1840s and 50s, he was harking back to some really severely cold winters including the last time the Thames froze solid, in 1814. Enough for an elephant to walk across. 

What we learn is that our memories and norms around what the weather was like are exceptionally unreliable. For all sorts of well-understood reasons about how memory functions – with the peak end bias and so forth. 

What happened next denialists keep pointing out that memory is faulty as if that is a knockdown argument. 

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: 

December 25, 1988 Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands says “the earth is slowly dying”

December 25, 1989 – business press pushback about Global Warning “panic” begins…

Categories
Sweden

December 24, 1895 – Arrhenius explains the work that went in…

One hundred and twenty nine years ago, on this day, December 24th, 1895, Svante Arrhenius explains the work that went in…

“His preliminary calculations showed that the required changes in CO2 were in the order of 50%. Hogbom, who was present, confirmed that those changes could have occurred in geological times. It remained, however, to demonstrate this quantitatively. The construction of the model which enabled him to do so occupied him for most of 1895. Writing to a friend at the end of the year, he found it “unbelievable that so trifling a matter has cost me a full year” (5) ”

Svante Arrhenius to Gustaf Tammann, December 24, 1895, Arrhenius Collection, Center for History of Science, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm in Crawford, E. 1997 Arrhenius’ 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect in Context Ambio, Vol. 26, No. 1, Arrhenius and the Greenhouse Gases (Feb., 1997), pp. 6-11

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 295ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Svante Arrhenius had gone through a divorce and partly to distract himself he’d spent a year doing insane calculations about the effects that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would have. He had produced this work. He had presented this work and it was about to be published. 

What we learn is that in the days before ENIAC computers, if you were a mathematician it was like that joke “Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He had to work it out with a pencil.” 

What happened next is his work was kind of disregarded thanks to a misunderstanding of how carbon dioxide works in the stratosphere, but it wasn’t lost altogether because some people took it seriously. Then Guy Callendar did the sums also without a computer and presented that work to the Royal Meteorological Society in front of Kenneth Hare and others. 

Fun fact. Arrhenius died in 1927. And Guy Callendar died in 1964, on the same day of the year, October 2nd https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/10/01/october-2-1927-64-svante-arrhenius-and-guy-callendar-die/

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: 

December 24, 1968 – “Earthrise” photo

December 24, 1990 – Australia as renewable energy superpower

Categories
Energy United States of America

December 23, 1973 – Solar Patent issued..

Fifty one years ago, on this day, December 23rd, 1973,

5. P. E. Glaser, “Method and Apparatus for Converting Solar Radiation to Electrical Power,” United States Patent 3,781,647, December 23, 1973.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Glaser had been aware of carbon dioxide build up at least since 1967. Possibly significantly earlier than that. He had mentioned it at a 1967 Solar Energy Conference in Tucson, Arizona and he had been talking about space satellites and microwave energy since ‘68. And here was his patent. 

What we learn is that smart people were knocking out actual plausible technofixes. 

What happened next? The idea of space-based systems was later used, I think, by the Reagan administration apparatchiks to undercut and undermine land-based systems. We should, of course, have had both. If we were smart species, that’s what we would have done. But we’re not a smart species. We are a technologically adept species, but that is distinct from being smart. And here we are with the emissions still rising. 

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: 

December 23, 2003 – Vestas opens Tasmanian wind turbine factory

December 23, 2009 – Kevin Rudd told to call double-dissolution #climate election… (spoiler – he didn’t)