Categories
United States of America

July 1, 1959 – Gilbert Plass article on climate change published in Scientific American

Sixty six years ago, on this day, July 1st, 1959, Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass has an article in Scientific American about … carbon dioxide build-up.

During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year [as of 2025 it’s about 40 billion tons]. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. Grain fields and pastures store much smaller quantities of carbon dioxide than the forests they replace, and the cultivation of the soil permits the vast quantities of carbon dioxide produced by bacteria to escape into the air.

And 

We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun’s energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth’s temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth’s temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth’s reserves of fossil fuels.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the idea that carbon dioxide build-up would heat the earth can be dated back to the 1890s (it’s slightly more complex than that, but this will do for now), from work by Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish scientist who later won a Nobel Prize (for other work).

But Arrhenius’ proposal had been shot down, thanks to arrogance about knowing how carbon dioxide operates in the stratosphere, and Guy Callendar’s 1938 lecture to the Royal Meteorological Society hadn’t changed that.

The specific context was that Plass had been banging on about carbon dioxide build-up since May 1953, and had had various articles published in specialist journals and also in more “Popular” ones like American Scientist and Scientific American.

What I think we can learn from this is that UK elites will have been well-informed. Scientific American was advertised and sold in the UK…

What happened next – Plass was present at a couple more meetings – e.g. New York in January 1961 and again in March 1963, but wasn’t particularly “into” climate – it wasn’t his thing.

And the carbon dioxide kept accumulating, obvs.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

July 1, 1999 – GEODISC gets green light

Twenty six years ago, on this day, July 1st, 1999, Australian fans of carbon capture move forward…

GEODISC commenced on July 1, 1999 after extensive consultation with industry regarding the issues, priorities, and available data. Wherever possible international research and development experience is being applied and modified to suit the conditions that prevail in Australia.

(see here)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm.  As of 2025, when this post was published, it is  430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that carbon capture and storage had been “bubbling under” since the late 1970s, with pilot studies here and there.  With the (likely) coming into effect of the Kyoto Protocol, which would force rich nations to actually reduce their emissions, CCS was grabbed out of the garbage can/filing cabinet and had some more money thrown at it…

The specific context was

The Australian government under Liberal John Howard had shown unremitting hostility to climate action, and had extorted a very very generous deal at the Kyoto Conference in December 1997.  But if Uncle Sam signed up, they might be forced to, so, good to have some pretend technologies on hand perhaps? I don’t actually know if this all got as far as Howard’s desk – seems rather unlikely, tbh – or was just being done as part of the normal operations of science and technology funding. Nor do I care that much, tbh.

What I think we can learn from this

The CCS bandwagon has been trundling along for a very very long time.

What happened nextAs of a bit later (December 2002) the PMSEIC (Prime Minister’s Science and IndustryCouncil) made some positive noises about CCS, and then it was off to the races…

Categories
Canada International processes

June 30, 1988 – Toronto conference on “Our Changing Atmosphere” ends

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 30th, 1988 

TORONTO conference ends

You can read some reflections on this from 2013 (25 years later) here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a scientific conference in Villach in September 1985 had been the starting gun for atmospheric scientists to push every button/pull every lever they could (at least in Australia and the US) on the question of “the greenhouse effect.”

One fruit of this was the “Our Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, from which the “Toronto Target” – a 20 per cent reduction in human emissions by 2005 – was born.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew almost four decades that there was trouble ahead (really, the awareness goes back to the late 1970s).

What happened next – the Toronto Target was ignored, derided or agreed to with such provisos that it would never be implemented. It did not make it into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Human emissions have gone up by almost 70% since then. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are surging, as are temperatures.  My 2004 decision not to have kids is looking smarter with the fall of each new temperature record. Breeders – wtaf?

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: 

June 30, 2008 – Judge stops a coal-burning power plant getting built. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 29, 2000 – promises of salvation via… vibes

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 29th, 2000.

POWER INDUSTRY GREEN LIGHT FOR GREENHOUSE CUTS

Environment Minister Robert Hill says Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will be dramatically reduced when new efficiency standards are introduced for power stations from July 1st.

Senator Hill said it’s expected the new standards for fossil fuel generators will lead to a cut of about four million tonnes of carbon emissions each year.

“This achievement, the equivalent of taking over one million cars permanently off the road, would not have been possible without the co-operation of industry,” Senator Hill said.

Media Release

Senator the Hon Robert Hill

Leader of the Government in the Senate

Minister for the Environment and Heritage

29 June 2000

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/archive/env/2000/mr29jun200.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.8ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Prime Minister John Howard had made it very clear he did not believe that climate change was a problem, and that Australia should not have signed the UNFCCC.  However, he needed to pretend to give a bit of a damn, to keep intelligent Liberal voters (they exist) on side/able to pretend that “Liberal values” weren’t going to trash Australia.  So, various bullshit PR stunts – like the “Greenhouse Challenge” and so on, were rolled out.

What I think we can learn from this.  There was, until Trump, a tendency of the knuckle-draggers to pretend that they gave a damn. Now they don’t bother so much….

What happened next  Howard killed off two Emissions Trading Schemes (one in August 2000 and another in mid-2003).  When climate change became a salient political issue in late 2006 he tried a pivot, but nobody believed 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: 

June 29, 1979 – G7 says climate change matters. Yes, 1979. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 28, 1994 – Faulkner says carbon tax a possibility

Thirty one years ago, on this day, June 28th, 1994 Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner says carbon tax a possibility – 

Faulkner tells states: World Heritage, woodchipping high on my agenda.

A new Commonwealth-States row was looming last night after the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, unveiled a hardline environmental strategy which includes a push to expand Australia’s World Heritage listings…. Later yesterday, Senator Faulkner said he was considering the implementation of a carbon tax and user pays strategies for heritage areas, as well as other economic measures to benefit the environment. He said he was expecting a departmental report on a range of measures by the end of the year so he could look at the possibilities “in the context of any submission I might make to Cabinet in the lead up to the next Budget”.

Lenthall, K., Darby, A. and Kelly, H. 1994. Green Showdown Looms. The Age, June 29, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting was scheduled to take place in Berlin in March-April 1995, and Australia could not afford to turn up empty handed. The “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” had been emptied of all meaning by a huge and successful lobbying effort (helped along by the transfer from Prime Minister Hawke to Prime Minister Keating).

What I think we can learn from this is that doing something about climate change, using the simplest and surely least controversial policy tool of carbon pricing – was successfully hammered out of existence by the rich, who just do not give a damn about the future of the planet and its species. 

What happened next Faulkner’s effort was met with highly effective opposition, and he ran up the white flag in February 1995. Carbon pricing came back on to the agenda, as an Emissions Trading Scheme, in 2006-7. An ETS was finally passed in 2011, only to be repealed in 2013-4. And here we are. 

xxx

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: 

June 28,1982 – Secretary of State for Energy justifies flogging off public assets – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Coal United States of America

June 27, 2013 – Judge versus climate

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 27th, 2013,  

U.S. District Court judge ruled against the expansion of Arch Coal’s West Elk mine in Colorado for failure of federal regulators to consider the social cost of carbon [3] in their environmental review.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/30/3454764/court-blocks-arch-mine-coal-expansion/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that one of the favoured tools for liberal opponents of climate change is the court system.  And sometimes there are, it seems, some “victories”.  Often reversed, but well, what are you gonna do? 

What I think we can learn from this.  “They make the laws to chain us well”…

What happened next. The courts get stacked with dickhead judges, cases get dismissed and the emissions climb….

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: 

June 27, 2000 – crazy but well-connected #climate denialists schmooze politicians – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Cartoons

June 26, 2009 – Impact on cartoonists

Sixteen years ago, on this day, June 26th, 2009,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Copenhagen climate conference was coming, and cartoonists had scope to tackle the implications of climate change.  But it’s always hard to find a new angle. Bizarro succeeded.

What I think we can learn from this – gallows humour is allowed.

What happened next. The emissions climbed. The concentrations climbed. The consequences climbed. The seas rose.

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: 

June 26, 1991 “environment is not flavor of the month any more” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 26, 1992 – BCA versus reality (BCA wins in the short-term)

Thirty three years ago, on this day, June 26th, 1992 the Business Council of Australia was defending the short-term interests of the rich, while weeping crocodile tears for the poor and completely ignoring the future. So good that they’ve changed their MO since then, eh?

“Australia would be “severely disadvantaged economically” if a 20 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases is achieved by 2005, according to the Business Council of Australia.

The council’s assistant director, Chris Burnup, in her address to the Institution of Engineers’ greenhouse policy seminar yesterday, said that Australia’s international trade competitiveness would decline and there would be a fall in the standard of living.”

 Sibley, D. 1992. Economy may suffer if gases reduced. Canberra Times, June 27, p.4.

This was at an Institution of Engineers Australia seminar – see also

Diesendorf, M., Kinrade, P., 1992. Integrated greenhouse policies for energy and transport post-Rio. Institution of Engineers Australia seminar on Australia’s greenhouse policy, Canberra, 26 June 1992. Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Rio Earth Summit had finally been agreed; it did not contain targets and timetables for emissions reduction (Uncle Sam had threatened to boycott if those were in the text, and the French blinked).  Australia had signed, having said no to a carbon tax at the same time (there’d be another battle in a couple of years).

What I think we can learn from this,  Business always wants to keep the beaches open. What’s a few people chomped by Great Whites between friends?

What happened next. The BCA continued to play a spoiler role. Of course. Crucially, it and the Minerals Council of Australia (then known as AMIC) created the “Australian Industry Greenhouse Network”, which fought against domestic and international action with great success. 

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: 

June 26, 1991 “environment is not flavor of the month any more” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Cartoons

June 25, 2007 – “what would you liked to have been?”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, June 25th, 2008,

 The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that we were in the midst of the second Big Wave of climate awareness (the first one had been 1988-1992).  Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had come out, won an Oscar. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC had come out.  Talk of a successor to the (piss-weak) Kyoto Protocol was afoot.  Climate camps were being held.  There was still a sort of belief that things might be if not turned around, then, the killer blows softened (not all of us believed that, of course).

What I think we can learn from this We knew of our failure.  And here we are.

What happened next: More great cartoons got published. And the emissions climbed. 

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: 

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Denial United States of America

June 25, 1996 – Wall Street Journal pretends to be a newspaper

Twenty nine  years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1996 the Wall Street Journal pretended to be a newspaper. 

“Santer immediately drafted a letter to the [Wall Street] Journal, which forty of the other IPCC lead authors signed. Santer explained what had happened, how he had been instructed by Houghton to make the changes, and why the changes were late in coming. At first the Journal wouldn’t publish it. After three tries, Santer finally got a call from the Journal’s letters editor and the letter was finally published on June 25. Santer’s reply had been heavily edited, and the names of the forty other cosigners deleted.

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 208

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report had said that there was already a discernible impact of human activity on the earth’s climate (It’s hard to remember now, but this was a Big Deal back then). The denialist attack dogs were predictably out for blood, and they had latched onto what they perceived to be a vulnerable scientist, Ben Santer.

What I think we can learn from this:  Assholes like the Global Climate Coalition and the so-called “George Marshall Institute” goons were amplified by “newspapers” like the Wall Street Journal, who were happy to publish hatchet jobs and then refuse significant right of reply.

What happened next  The denialists found a new object of hate – Michael E. Mann.  And the caravan kept rolling on.  The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed, the consequences climbed. 

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: 

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays