Month: July 2025

Categories
United States of America

August 1, 1964 – Popular Mechanics says the air around us is changing

Sixty one years ago, on this day, August 1, 1964, the magazine Popular Mechanics ran a story “The air around us: how it is changing” including mention of CO2 build-up – “when you burn anything such as fuel for heat or power you also take oxygen from the atmosphere and give back carbon dioxide.”

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ROMDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA4&dq=The+Air+Around+Us:+How+It+Is+Changing&pg=PA81&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 319ppm. 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 1950s had seen an explosion in scientific measurement of, well, everything (see also “The Great Acceleration”). Popular Mechanics had, 11 years earlier, briefly covered Gilbert Plass’s 1953 statements. The International Geophysical Year (1957-8) had enabled accurate measurements of carbon dioxide to be taken in various locations – most famously in Hawaii.

The specific context was “smog” in American cities was becoming a real problem, and journalists looking for newer/broader angles were also beginning to think globally. The journalist here is also drawing upon the report from the Conservation Foundation, of early 1963…

What I think we can learn from this is that anyone tolerably well-educated knew there might be trouble ahead. True, they probably also assumed we would nuke ourselves before then…

What happened next – the following February (1965) President Lyndon Johnson’s special message to Congress about pollution/natural beauty included a glancing reference to carbon dioxide levels… It would be the mid 1980s before serious policymaker concern began.

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

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Uncategorized United States of America

August 1, 1976 – Oak Ridge report on “The Global Carbon Dioxide Problem” released

Forty nine years ago, on this day, August 1, 1976, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory released a report titled “The Global Carbon Dioxide Problem.” The abstract is just a page – this leaps out

”estimates of the consequent warming … range from possibly acceptable to catastrophic.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 332ppm. 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 through the 1970s more and more scientists were looking at carbon dioxide levels and saying to themselves “yikes”…

The specific context was that the response to the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo had been the US announcing “Project Independence” – lots more coal and nuclear….

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty, half a century ago. And here we are.

What happened next was that there was a push for the issue to be taken seriously. If Carter had got a second term, maybe. But that all ended with Desert One…

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: 

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

July 31, 1981 – Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

Forty four years ago, on this day, July 31st, 1981, American politicians held hearings on,

“Carbon Dioxide and Climate, the Greenhouse Effect”

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, First Session, July 31, 1981

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. 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 through the 1970s scientists – including American ones – had been studying the carbon dioxide build-up issue and become increasingly alarmed. There had been the First World Climate Conference in Geneva, in February 1979. More scientific work was being done, and there wasn’t much doubt among those studying the issue – there was trouble ahead.

The specific context was that some politicians (Paul Tsongas, Al Gore – who’d been taught by Roger Revelle at Harvard) got it. And at this point, it really had not become a culture war issue – the culture war thing happened thanks to deliberate efforts by incumbents (see Ross Gelbspan’s books on this). 

What I think we can learn from this is that we could have begun to take climate action in the early 1980s. But we didn’t. And we in fact never have. And here we are.

What happened next A 1985 scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, led to scientists making bigger efforts to inform politicians and policymakers. In 1988, the issue “broke 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: 

July 31, 1981 – US politicians hold “carbon dioxide and climate” hearings.

July 31, 2008 – another day, another “Strategic Review”

Categories
Australia

July 30, 2005 – John Howard versus the climate

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 30th, 2005, an article about just how much influence the fossil fuel lobby had on Australian energy and climate policy making appeared in the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.

“This week John Howard committed Australia to an American-led climate pact that groups the major greenhouse gas producers and aims to develop technological methods to minimise the detrimental side-effects of using coal to create energy. Today Richard Baker discloses how big industry exercised its influence to torpedo the Kyoto protocols.

“Australia’s former chief climate change official has accused the Federal Government of allowing the fossil fuel, energy and mining industries too much influence over its policies – including its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

“Gwen Andrews, former chief executive of the Australian Greenhouse Office, told The Age she was never asked to brief Prime Minister John Howard on climate change during her four years in the role, at a time when Mr Howard was deliberating whether to ratify Kyoto.

“This week Australia confirmed its involvement in a US-led Asia-Pacific coalition to tackle climate change which rejects the Kyoto protocol and instead focuses on technology to make fossil fuels cleaner rather than restricting emissions from industry. China, India, South Korea and Japan are also involved.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-big-energy-won-the-climate-battle/2005/07/29/1122144020224.html and

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/industrys-hand-guides-climate-plan/2005/07/29/1122144024576.html?from=moreStories

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 the Australian political elite had decided reducing Australian domestic emissions was too much like hard work and would piss off their rich business mates by the early 1990s. Everything since then had been hand-wringing (Labor) or brazen “we don’t give a damn” (Liberal and National Party).

The specific context was the Howard government had set up an “Australian Greenhouse Office” in 1998, but had lacked interest in continuing the pretence, and abolished it – having achieved nothing, which was what Howard wanted – in 2004 or so.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is all kayfabe, all pretend. There are all sorts of pretend organisations, either there to spoil other efforts or give the impression that Something Is Being Done.

What happened next is that the following year, from about September, Howard’s terrible climate record finally began to catch up with him. But Labor were only very very marginally better, and only for a short while. Oh well.

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: 

July 30, 1968 – the UN says yes to an environment conference

July 30, 1979 – scientists warn US Senators about synfuels and carbon dioxide build-up

July 30, 1989 – UK Conservative politician warns “we have at most 25 years to take action.”

Categories
United Kingdom

July 29, 2023 – Sunak all in on oil and gas drilling

Two years ago, on this day, July 29th, 2023,

The Prime Minister announced on Monday that his Government will grant potentially hundreds of new licences for oil and gas drilling in the North Sea in a dramatic departure from the Government’s stance on fossil fuels. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tory-backlash-as-rishi-sunak-vows-to-max-out-north-sea-oil-and-gas-reserves-2517491

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 421ppm. 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 UK had been an early “leader” on climate policy, or so it liked to tell itself. Funny though, it never stood up to the American vandalism in the early 1990s, for fear of damaging the “Special Relationship”. So, for example, was climate on the agenda of the G7 in London in 1991? Well no, no it wasn’t.

Meanwhile, thanks to the reduction in the amount of coal in the electricity mix, and deindustrialisation (factories shipped to cheaper places), the UK looked like it was doing its bit, or more than its bit (which is narrowly true, so long as you don’t look too closely, or think about consumption emissions). 

So, thanks to all this, there was a broad but turns-out-thin “consensus” on the need/desirability for further climate action. And then came Rishi…

The specific context was that Sunak had become Prime Minister thanks to Liz Truss (and that six weeks is beginning to take on the aura of a cheese dream). And Sunak, who is clever but dim, thought he could use the perceived “ahead of the curve” ness of UK decarbonisation as cover for business as usual.

What I think we can learn from this is that the British political elite – like the Australian political elite and probably any other you care to mention – wouldn’t know a Keeling Curve if it bit them on the ass. They think the only reality is spreadsheets. They have doomed us all to fiery death. Ah well, so it goes.

What happened next – Sunak was turfed by the electorate and replaced by the towering political colossus, with unimpeachable political instincts and deep respect for human rights and the environment – known as Keir Starmer.

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: 

July 29, 1974 – the World (will be heating) according to GARP

July 29, 2013 – unreadable denialist screed published.

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 28, 2005 – AP6 announced

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 28th, 2005 a bullshit “spoiler organisation” the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) designed to undermine the Kyoto Protocol, which neither Australia nor the US had ratified, was launched.

“The partnership announced itself while tepidly pledging not to undermine the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the treaty to limit global greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto’s supporters clothed their contempt for the new partnership in condescension.

The birth notice of the partnership was a terse statement issued from the White House by US President George W. Bush a few hours before the press conference in Vientiane on July 28, 2005. With paternity clearly established, the US stepped back and allowed Australia’s foreign minister to chair the announcement.”

Dobell – https://griffithreview.com/articles/the-gang-of-six-lost-in-kyotoland/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was holed below the waterline before it even left port, thanks to the resistance of the United States to targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations going in the treaty text. The Kyoto Protocol had been an attempt to patch the hole in the hull.

The specific context was that the US had pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto in March 2001, with Australia following in June 2002. But Kyoto had, eventually, become international law in February 2005, thanks to Russia ratifying for a) the shiggles and b) WTO membership (a tacit quid pro quo). So President Bush and Australian Prime Minister little Johnie Howard wanted a “technology-led” spoiler organisation so they could distract from their rampant vandalism, and give possibly worried “conservatives” something to point to, a talking point.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a massive effort to manage Joe and Jane Publics anxieties. If their glorious leaders are assholes (i.e. all the time), then there has to be some way of not seeing what is obvious. Most of that is supplied by the normal bias in the media, but sometimes a spoiler proposal is called for.

NB Nothing here should be read as an endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, which was criminally inadequate.

What happened next – the AP6 died, and was not mourned. Other spoiler organisations were formed. Grand sounding but just as empty. 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.

References

Jeffrey Mcgee & Ros Taplin 2006. The Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: A complement or competitor to the Kyoto protocol? Global Change, Peace & Security, Volume 18, 3,  173-192  https://doi.org/10.1080/14781150600960230

Also on this day: 

July 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

July 28, 1990 – American #climate denial comes to London

July 28, 2003 – James Inhofe shares his genius

Categories
Australia

July 27, 1988 – The greenback effect

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, July 27th, 1988 a highly entertaining and informative article by Australian chemist Ben Selinger is published in the Canberra Times.

Selinger, B. 1988. The greenback affects the greenhouse effect. Canberra Times July 27, p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. 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 Australian scientists (and probably especially the chemists!) had been looking at carbon dioxide build-up for at the very least a decade and saying “oh, there will be trouble at some point.”

The specific context was in 1988 the issue had hit the headlines (in part thanks to sterling work by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO’s division of Atmospheric Physics). By 1989, we were into the blustering and “funding for further research” dodges and wheezes as politicians began to understand quite how disruptive to the status quo that real greenhouse action would be.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a very identifiable pattern to the recurrent booms in awareness – we live in a kind of Groundhog Day, but without quite realising that. So, a boring tragedy instead of a Buddhist comedy…

What happened next – the counter-attack to climate concern got properly going in late 1989 and then picked up momentum and support. Meanwhile, the emissions kept going up, as did the atmospheric concentrations…

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: 

July 27, 1977 – Pro-nuclear professor cites #climate concerns at Adelaide speech

July 27, 1979 – Thatcher’s Cabinet ponders burying climate report

July 27, 2001 – Minerals Council of Australia versus the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

July 26, 2006 – Costello versus wind farms

Nineteen years ago, on this day, July 26th, 2006,

The same month, the Treasurer Peter Costello stated in a doorstop interview, ‘Well if you are asking me my view on wind farms, I think they are ugly, I wouldn’t want one in my street, I wouldn’t want one in my own back yard’

(Prest, 2007: 254)

Peter Costello, Press Conference 26 July 2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 hostility to renewable energy has a long history in Australia, dating back to the 1970s. Coal was king, and intended to stay that way.

The specific context was that John Howard, Prime Minister since 1996 had been busy trying to slow the growth of renewables, with considerable success, as per the leaked minutes of the “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” in 2004. 

What I think we can learn from this is that old white conservative men with brittle fragile egos and limited understanding of – well – everything – have delayed the “energy transition” to the point where it is impossible and everything is turning to very hot shit. Oh well.

What happened next – Costello didn’t “have the ticker” to challenge Howard for the top job. Renewables got some help under Labor of Rudd and Gillard, but nowhere near what was needed to push emissions down. 

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

Hudson, M. 2017 Wind Beneath Their Contempt. ERSS

Also on this day: 

July 26, 1967 – Allen Ginsberg tells Gary Snyder it’s “a general lemming situation”

July 26, 1977 – Australians warned about cities being flooded #CanberraTimes

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times…

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 25, 2008 – More economic “modelling” against an emissions trading scheme

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2008 the “sky will fall if we do anything to reduce emissions and here is some economic modelling to ‘prove’ it” bullshit continued, as the Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) release ACIL Tasman modelling, which of course gets uncritical splashes in the Murdoch press.

At the same time, will-be Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull joins then-Liberal leader Brendan Nelson in saying “delay the implementation of an emissions trading scheme.”

Federal opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has fallen into step behind his leader, declaring an emission trading scheme shouldn’t be introduced until it is in Australia’s interest.

In government, the coalition supported a start date of 2012, but earlier this week leader Brendan Nelson indicated it would reject the legislation until big polluting countries agreed to reduce their emissions.

Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister, had steadfastly supported a 2012 start date – until now.

“An emissions trading scheme shouldn’t start until it is ready and until it is in Australia’s interest for it to start,” Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio.

“The government is definitely rushing this, 2010 is far too soon.”

AAP, 2008. Govt ‘rushing’ carbon trading: Turnbull. AAP, 25 July. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 the use of “independent” economic modelling to say that any emissions reductions efforts would lead directly to Stone Age cannibalism was a favoured tactic of the incumbents (why change a game that had been winning since the early 1990s?).

The specific context was John Howard, who had killed off two Emissions Trading Scheme proposals brought to Cabinet in 2000 and 2003 had been forced into a u-turn in late 2006. The next Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had said he’d bring an ETS in, and various incumbent outfits were trying to delay the start date, while also creating all sorts of loopholes and give-aways.

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of policy always have fall-back positions. If they can’t stop something in the short-term, they’ll try to soften the blows. This also means that the policy will probably be less effective and easier to reverse in future. A nice little ancillary benefit…

What happened next – Rudd, and his underling Penny Wong, continued to give ground and give ground. Eventually Rudd’s CPRS scheme failed to get through parliament, thanks to new opposition leader Tony Abbott. Rather than call a double-dissolution election, the spineless Rudd pivoted, and tanked his credibility and popularity, which had remained inexplicably high until that point. All this led indirectly to serious blood-letting and bed-wetting. The Australian Labor Party learned all the wrong lessons, and is now just the PR mouthpiece and stabvest for the mining sector. Oh well, so it goes.

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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Australia Energy

July 25, 1989 – “Mineral Fuel Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 25th, 1989, 

Mineral Fuels Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect Seminar in Melbourne

Australian Institute of Metallurgy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 from 1988 – thanks in part to the domestic work of the “Greenhouse Project” (a collaboration of the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future) – Australian public debate about the greenhouse effect and what to do about it high.

The specific context was that debates about how to reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions were about what else besides coal (then dominant) might keep the lights on. Might it be natural gas?

What I think we can learn from this is that there were debates about replacing coal waaaaay back when.

What happened next – the coal lobby fought back (obvs) and even though the debate on natural gas continued, ultimately it was wind and solar that finally began eating into coal’s dominance, in the 2010s. Meanwhile, Australia’s per capita emissions remain staggeringly high, and the impacts of climate change are beginning to bite. Billions of cooked animals. What a species we are.

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: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”