Month: November 2025

Categories
Norway United Kingdom

November 30, 2005 – a “North Sea Basin Task Force” is formed

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 31st, 2005,

On 30 November 2005, Minister Enoksen of Norway and Minister Wicks of the UK agreed to establish a North Sea Basin Task Force, composed of public and private bodies from countries on the rim of the North Sea. Its purpose: to develop common principles for managing and regulating the transport, injection and permanent storage of CO2 in the North Sea sub-seabed. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/oed/pdf_filer/rapporter/north-sea-basin-report-final.pdf

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 North Sea had been an economic bonanza for both countries (only one of which had bothered to set up a sovereign wealth fund).

The specific context was – there was increased interest in CCS, and depleted North Sea oil fields seemed like a good idea…

What I think we can learn from this – we have been hoping for technofixes for a long time.

What happened next – the CCS bubble burst in 2011, and again in 2015, but thanks to astonishing lobbying, it’s back on the agenda, and is getting LOADS of 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.

Also on this day: 

November 30, 1978 – House of Lords debate on Atmospheric Changes…

November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue” 

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

November 30, 2014 – US TV show The Newsroom tackles climate change

Categories
Australia

November 29, 1995 – Australian power company boss is silent on climate, obvs

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 30th, 1995,

Two days ago, Fred Hilmer, the chairman of Australia’s worst atmospheric polluter, Pacific Power, gave a talk at the University of NSW on the rationale behind the Carr Government’s changes to the electricity industry.

Professor Hilmer gave an impressive, enthusiastic sales job. The crowded room was hot as hell that afternoon and at the end of his 45-minute talk he was sweating profusely.

Even though Pacific Power is our biggest producer of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect and global warming were not mentioned. It was an extraordinary omission.

1995 Gilchrist, G. 1995. Just The Shock Power Industry Needs. Sydney Morning Herald.  December 1, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. 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 Australia’s leaders had by this time had 7 years of having to pretend they gave a damn about “the greenhouse effect”.  But the public pressure was off a bit by now…

The specific context was – a carbon tax proposal had been defeated earlier in the year, and maybe Hilmer couldn’t be bothered to pretend to give a shit?

What I think we can learn from this – they will ignore an issue if they think they can get away with it.

What happened next – John Howard became Prime Minister of Australia in March 1996 and climate policy went from incredibly bad to even worse.

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 29, 1973 – Australian politician warns of climate change

NOVEMBER 29, 1974 – SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER SAYS “RISK OF A CHANGED CLIMATE DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES … [IS] OF UTTER IMPORTANCE”

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

November 29, 1990 and 1994 – Australian denial fools (Fred Singer and Brian Tucker) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

November 29, 1968 – Arnold Marsh of the National Clean Air Society on carbon dioxide

Fifty six years ago, on this day, November 29th, 1968,

Arnold Marsh, secretary of the UK National Clean Air Society,  namechecks the problem at a speech at the House of Lords.

“A long-term outstanding problem, in the view of serious American scientific opinion, is the effect of the gradual but steady increase in the carbon dioxide content of the air as a result of the prodigious consumption, which is still going up, of the fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide, the product of all combustion processes – including our own internal processes – is not usually regarded as an air pollutant, and most of it is absorbed by growing plants. But the amount remaining in the atmosphere is creeping up, and in due course, it is suggested, the fact that it absorbs and retains more solar heat than the air itself, will mean a rise in the mean temperature of the atmosphere. This would lead to a melting of the polar ice-caps so that the level of the sea would rise and cover all low-lying land. It is not something that could happen in our lifetimes, but, if the arguments are correct, it could become catastrophic at some future date.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. 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 from about 1967, more and more British people were realising that carbon dioxide might be a serious problem. 

The specific context was that the impetus for this from Marsh MIGHT have been Ritchie-Calder’s speech to the Conservation Society a few days earlier (i.e. Marsh may have been in touch with Ritchie-Calder about this earlier.).

What I think we can learn from this – we knew plenty.

What happened next – the general “eco” wave began properly the next year, and lasted through until 1972 or 3 or so…

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 29, 1973 – Australian politician warns of climate change

NOVEMBER 29, 1974 – SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER SAYS “RISK OF A CHANGED CLIMATE DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES … [IS] OF UTTER IMPORTANCE”

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

November 29, 1990 and 1994 – Australian denial fools (Fred Singer and Brian Tucker) – All Our Yesterdays

CATEGORIES- 

Categories
Australia Denial

November 28, 1988 – early doubt-casting

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, November 28th, 1988, a doubt-casting paper from Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy paper discussed at first “National Energy Consultative Council”

Clear answers on the climatic impact on Australia of the greenhouse effect will not be achieved for at least 10 years because of limited scientific knowledge, according to a Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy paper.

The paper cautions against attributing some existing climatic conditions, like the drought in the United States and floods in Bangladesh, to the greenhouse effect.

Gill, P. 1988. Paper cautious on greenhouse effect. Australian Financial Review, November 30

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. 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 warnings about carbon dioxide build-up had been coming since the early 1980s (ONA report, Tucker’s monograph). But in 1984, Australia had become the world’s largest coal exporter, so, there’s that.

The specific context was by mid-1988 the question of “the greenhouse effect” was one that could no longer be simply ignored.  Denial and doubt-casting became part of the mix.

What I think we can learn from this – from the beginning, the Australian state was keen to defend exporters from scrutiny, challenges.

What happened next – nothing substantive has changed in the intervening 4 decades.  Except the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

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 28, 1976 – climate modelling workshop in USA

November 28, 2001 – “Stellar team for sun-powered debate” in Adelaide –

November 28, 2008 – somebody shuts down a coal plant, solo

Categories
United States of America

November 27, 2018 – Obama boasts about oil production – “that was me, people”

Seven years ago, on this day, November 27th, 2018, former President Obama gives a speech at Rice University:

“I was extraordinarily proud of the Paris Accords because, look I know we’re in oil country and we need American energy. And by the way, American energy production, you wouldn’t always know it, but it went up every year I was president. And you know that whole suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer … that was me, people.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 408ppm. 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 climate change is not an issue for our lords and masters, not if it gets in the way of capital accumulation (and despite what the eco-modernists want you to believe, it does).

The specific context was that safely out of office Obama could tell it straight.

What I think we can learn from this – this is who the systems demand they be.  The system is what it does, as per Stafford Beer.

What happened next – the oil kept flowing, the emissions kept 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: 

November 27, 1956 – New York Times science writer who covered C02 build-up dies.

November 27 1967 – Newsweek wrings its hands about future ecological problems, including carbon dioxide

November 27, 1969 – Canberra Times runs pollution article, mentions melting ice-caps

November 27, 1978 – “Impacts of climate on Australian Society and Economy” begins…

November 27, 1974 – “The Fear of Climatic Change” – presentation to Australian Royal Meteorological Society 

Categories
United States of America

November 27, 1978 – Harvey Milk assassinated

Forty eight years ago, on this day, November 27th, 1978,

On this day in San Francisco, city mayor George Moscone and openly gay city supervisor Harvey Milk are assassinated by former supervisor Dan White.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 335ppm. 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 upsurge of the 1960s had led to all sorts of positive changes in US society, including the ability of openly homosexual people (men at first) to run for public office.

What I think we can learn from this – liberation comes with risks, as shown in the film Milk.

What happened next – the killer, Dan White, took his own life a few years later.

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 27, 1956 – New York Times science writer who covered C02 build-up dies.

November 27 1967 – Newsweek wrings its hands about future ecological problems, including carbon dioxide

November 27, 1969 – Canberra Times runs pollution article, mentions melting ice-caps

November 27, 1978 – “Impacts of climate on Australian Society and Economy” begins…

November 27, 1974 – “The Fear of Climatic Change” – presentation to Australian Royal Meteorological Society 

Categories
Australia

November 26, 2009 – Abbott challenges Turnbull

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

On 26 November 2009, Liberal frontbencher Tony Abbott, reluctant yet determined, confronted his party leader Malcolm Turnbull in his office and instigated an upheaval that would shape Australian politics for years. Abbott asked Turnbull to abandon his support for carbon-pricing. He was accompanied by Senate leader Nick Minchin, the ideological spearhead of the campaign against Turnbull and the engineer of this encounter. This meeting would unleash unpredictable winds that would ruin Turnbull’s leadership, catapult Abbott into the office of Opposition leader and eventually destroy both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.

(Kelly, 2014:18)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 388ppm. 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 after a very brief attempt to court environmentally-concerned voters in the run-up to the 1990 Federal election (LINK), the Liberals and Nationals decided to hate on the greenies.

The specific context was that Malcolm Turnbull had tried to get his party to go along with Rudd’s dire emissions trading scheme, and had said the fateful phrase “I will not lead a party… LINK.

Now, after having announced that the climate change science was “absolute crap” Tony Abbott was making his move.

What I think we can learn from this – they are all terrible people.

What happened next – Abbott toppled Turnbull, by a single vote. He was then a wrecking ball as an Opposition leader (tremendously effective) and a catastrophically inept Prime Minister.

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 26, 1979 – CCS first glimmerings, by Albanese and Steinberg 

November 26, 1966 – Conservation Society first meeting 

November 26, 1996 – Australian climate modelling is ridiculed

November 26, 1998 – “National Greenhouse Strategy” (re)-launched

November 26, 2008 – pre-CPRS meeting (yawn)

November 26, 2008 – Climate Change Act becomes law

Categories
United Kingdom

November 26, 2008 – UK MPs told climate targets inadequate 

Eighteen years ago, on this day, November 26th, 2008,

A leading climate scientist has told the Environmental Audit Committee that the international target to cut carbon dioxide is too modest and the cap on temperature rise too high to prevent dangerous climate change.

On 26 November, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee held a special one-off evidence session on the scientific basis for global carbon reduction targets. Giving evidence was leading climate scientist Professor James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the government’s chief scientific adviser Professor John Beddington and Environment Department (DEFRA) scientific adviser Professor Robert Watson.

Anon, 2008. Committee told climate targets are insufficient  ENDS Report Dec 19

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 UK had at that time a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 as its target. This was bumped up to 80% in 2008. 

Bob Watson had been telling politicians (UK and US) for 20 years at this point. See this – June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.”

The specific context was that the Climate Change Act received Royal Assent that very day.

What I think we can learn from this – the MPs were warned, but didn’t particularly give a shit – tomorrow’s problem.

What happened next – in 2019 the target was pushed up to “Net Zero” (distinct from actual zero) by 2050.  All too late.

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 26, 1979 – CCS first glimmerings, by Albanese and Steinberg 

November 26, 1966 – Conservation Society first meeting 

November 26, 1996 – Australian climate modelling is ridiculed

November 26, 1998 – “National Greenhouse Strategy” (re)-launched

November 26, 2008 – pre-CPRS meeting (yawn)

November 26, 2008 – Climate Change Act becomes law

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial

November 25, 2010 – GB Tucker dies

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 25th, 2010,

2010 GB Tucker dies, after writing a bunch of shite in the IPA Review after retirement (f.ex. November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue”)

In 1986, he was singing a different tune.

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 that Tucker had written the 1981 monograph on C02. (LINK)

The specific context was that upon retiring from the CSIRO’s Atmospheric Physics division Tucker had written a couple of dodgy denialist articles for the Institute of Public Affairs. An ignominious end to what could have been a reasonable career.

What I think we can learn from this – 1) people get Relevance Deprivation Syndrome.  2) Education is no real protection against being spectacularly wrong.

What happened next – denialism continued, obvs.

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 25, 1968 – First atmospheric layers collection of carbon dioxide… – All Our Yesterdays

November 25, 1993 – House of Commons briefing on carbon taxes

November 25, 2000 – CoP meeting ends in official disarray…

Categories
Activism

November 24, 1979 – Anti-nuclear campaign launch

Forty six years ago, on this day, November 24th, 1979 an Anti Nuclear campaign launch – see  two pager about this in the London Greenpeace

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. 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 1970s saw a huge growth in anti-nuclear power movements.

The specific context was – Thatcher had come to power, and was as gung-ho for nuclear as her predecessors (because, well, there’s a permanent pro-nuclear establishment, isn’t there?).

What I think we can learn from this – smart people have been writing about the problems faced by social movements/NGOs for a long time, and we could do worse than listen and learn. But we won’t do that, because it requires time, access to materials, courage, curiosity and humility.

What happened next – the coalition didn’t really last, as I suspect many knew it wouldn’t.

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 24, 1971 – I’ve seen the future baby, it is murder (Meadows explaining Limits to Growth at US Embassy) – All Our Yesterdays

November 24, 1977 – Canberra Times reports “all coal” plan would “flood US cities”

November 24, 1992 – I’ve seen the future baby, it is murder (Cohen’s “The Future” released) 

November 24, 2009 – the Climate War in Australia goes kinetic…