Month: March 2026

Categories
Australia Renewable energy United Kingdom

April 1, 2002 – Renewables policies in UK and Australia

On this day, April 1,  

UK  Introduced on 1 April 2002, the Renewables Obligation requires all electricity suppliers who supply electricity to end consumers to supply a set portion of their electricity from eligible renewables sources; a proportion that will increase each year until 2015 from a 3% requirement in 2002–2003, via 10.4% in 2010-2012 up to 15.4% by 2015–2016.

and 

2002 MRET in Australia 1st Mandatory Renewable Energy Target established (following speech by Howard just before Kyoto)

The 2% to 0% target shenanigans – see Kent and Mercer 2006…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the 1970s scientists had been saying that continuing to burn coal (and gas and oil) for energy was going to lead to really bad outcomes and that therefore nuclear and renewables needed to be prioritised.

The specific context was that in the UK the Blair government was continuing to bank the emissions reductions from the “dash for gas” and do pretty much as little as possible on climate change.  In Australia John Howard (Liberal Prime Minister) had slow-walked his 1997 (pre-Kyoto) promise of a renewables target.

What I think we can learn from this is that our political leaders don’t lead in any meaningful sense – they do what is convenient to their donors in the short term (next three years or so).

What happened next:  Renewables continued to get not that much support in the UK – though that changed a bit in the 2010s – or rather, offshore wind took off. Howard continued to resist all growth in renewables as much as he could.  

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: 

April 1, 1857 – Bucharest gets oily illuminations

April 1, 1960 – TIROS satellite launched – All Our Yesterdays

April 1, 1970 – Eco-documentary shown on Melbourne TV, carbon dioxide build-up mentioned

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

Categories
Australia

April 1, 2001 – Lindsey Tanner warns the ALP…

On this day, April 1, 2001 an Australian Labor Party MP tries to explain the dangers ahead for his party.

In a speech yesterday, Tanner opined that middle class voters of both hues cared about the environment. “If Labor allows the distinction between the Greens and the Coalition to become the dominant point of environmental differentiation in Australian politics, we will lose a major advantage over the Liberal and National Parties,” he said.

Tanner was concerned that the government would slip through the environment net through advertising glossing over its record. The big one going now is TV celebrity Don Burke extolling the Coalition’s Greenhouse credentials. Funny that, since most of the cash comes courtesy of the Democrats, who insisted on real money going into alternative energy research and rail as part of its price for supporting the GST. The Democrats got $400 million in extra funding for greenhouse gas projects over four years. In retrospect, lucky for the Coalition.                                   

Kingston, M. 2001. Australia: green enough for Kyoto? Sydney Morning Herald, April 2 . http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027322567.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that social democratic parties, based in productivism and unions, were always uneasy allies with greenies: the “environment issue” gets bolted on (the foot of) pre-existing shopping lists of demands. It’s easier done in opposition when you can criticise the ruling party, the governing party. Once you’re in power, it gets trickier (though Moss Cass, Whitlam’s Environment Minister had some successes). 

The specific context was that, after the failure and betrayal of the Hawk Keating governments on climate change, the greens (small g) had, on the second or third attempt, created a national political party. By 2001 they were beginning to win, warning that Labour could continue to bleed support.

What I think we can learn from this is that spotting dilemmas is easier than taking action to manage them.  

What happened next:  The Green vote has continued to grow (unevenly both spatially and temporally).  And Labor continues to have sooks when people they think they own vote otherwise. And the emissions continue to 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: 

April 1, 1857 – Bucharest gets oily illuminations

April 1, 1960 – TIROS satellite launched – All Our Yesterdays

April 1, 1970 – Eco-documentary shown on Melbourne TV, carbon dioxide build-up mentioned

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

Categories
United Nations

March 31, 2002 – UN Secretary General again

Four years ago, on this day, March 31st, 2022,


The United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, on 31 March 2022, established a High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities to develop stronger and clearer standards for net-zero emissions pledges by non-State entities – including businesses, investors, cities, and regions – and speed up their implementation. 

With the launch of the report “Integrity Matters: Net Zero commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions” at the UN Climate Conference (COP27) in Sharm-el Sheikh, Egypt, the Group has successfully finalized its work and delivered on its mandate.

“We must have zero tolerance for net-zero greenwashing,” said the Secretary-General at the launch event that took place on 8 November 2022. The report provides clarity in four key areas – environmental integrity, credibility, accountability, and the role of governments.   https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/high-level-expert-group#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20must%20have%20zero%20tolerance,and%20the%20role%20of%20governments.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the United Nations had been wanging on about the environment since sort of 1968-69. A previous Secretary General, U Thant, had even mentioned carbon dioxide build up as a problem in early 1969 and here we are, 33 years after that, and the Warnings Keep Coming. The Warnings Keep Coming.

The specific context   President George W Bush of the United States had pulled the US out of negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, which was the mechanism by which industrialised nations were supposed to commit to reducing their carbon dioxide emissions. So it was pretty obvious that the wheels on the bandwagon were, if not off, then wobbling on their axles and needed alignment.

What I think we can learn from this is that the UN is basically the League of Nations only. It’s gone on for a lot longer. 

What happened next. More Secretaries General, more shit fuckery from the United States under Obama and Biden and Trump. But of course, it’s not like the United States is the only villain here. We all are on a beautiful planet that we are basically destroying. And I look at the swans and the ducks and the moorhens, a moorhen giving itself a good bath here. And I. I can’t say I’m a huge fan of the greed and stupidity and selfishness that is a significant part of our species.

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: 

 March 31, 1973 – Protest in Piccadilly Circus

March 31, 1998 – another report about #climate and business in the UK

March 31, 1998 – two business-friendly climate events in UK and Australia

March 31, 2007 – Earth Hour (the most putrid kind of virtue signalling)

Categories
Australia

 March 30, 2000 – Robert Hill “attacks” industry

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 30th, 2000. 

Industry has been slammed by Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill for its slowness to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’m not inclined to reward those companies who make Australia’s emission reduction task more difficult,” Senator Hill said yesterday.

The blunt message came at The Australian Financial Review’s Third Annual Emissions Forum, being held in Sydney. But industry wants the government to provide better incentives to reduce emissions.

Hordern, N. 2000. Hill attacks industry over gas emissions. The Australian Financial Review, 31 March, p27.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that the Australian political elites, by 1994-95 had definitively decided that they were going to prioritise the coal industry over future generations of Australians and the ecosystems and you name it, because the money, the non-executive directorships, the prestige, etc, all came from the coal industry and its allies. In 1996 the Liberal National Party, or liberal and national parties, for most states, had won the 1996 election and Prime Minister John Howard had come to power. He was extremely hostile to all things environmental, but especially the problem of carbon dioxide build up. This was evident from the second COP in June of that year onwards.  

The specific context was that Howard had simply kept a wheeze created under Paul Keating (previous Prime Minister). The “Greenhouse Challenge” had been the booby prize after a carbon tax was defeated. And the Greenhouse Challenge was one of these, “voluntary schemes” where industry was supposed to show that it could do what was needed and wanted without the heavy hand of unnecessary regulation. And guess what? Industry didn’t. Who knew. What A Shock.

What I think we can learn from this is that.  So here we have the Environment Minister performatively “chiding” industry, and industry would largely take it on the chin. It’s all pretend. It’s all kayfabe. Everyone knows that only the terminally-naive think that anything is actually going to be done and that government is going to get up on its hind legs and challenge big business. I mean, come on, it’s not the 1970s anymore. 

What happened next

The Greenhouse Challenge was rebooted as Greenhouse Challenge Plus, but then, sort of by 2004 or five it became impossible for anyone to pretend and so the whole thing was quietly done away with. Then late the following year, 2006 the climate issue exploded onto the scene and has never really left. It’s just now a running open saw that no one knows what to do with. 

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: 

 March 30, 1948 – The Conservation Foundation founded

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

March 30, 1988 – Greenpeace protests acid rain 

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, March 30th, 1988.  

By ED LION LONDON — Tens of thousands of morning commuters watched two Greenpeace members Wednesday scale the 170-foot-high Nelson’s Column in London’s famed Trafalgar Square and perch atop it for three hours to protest acid rain.

Seven Greenpeace members — including the two climbers and five others who had helped them from the ground — were arrested


March 30, 1988 Seven arrested in protest against acid rain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that acid rain had been a sore point for the UK, especially because the Scandinavians – the Norwegians and the Swedes especially – were complaining that sulphur dioxide from the coal fired power stations of the UK’s Central Electricity Generating Board were causing acid rain to damage Swedish ecosystems, and the Thatcher government was extremely hostile to all action on this.

The specific context was that there had been the European Year of the Environment. Greenpeace was riding high. 1988 was one of those years that where a decade happens in a month sort of thing, on climate but more generally on environmental concerns.

What I think we can learn from this is that they weren’t able to get the same level of concern going about carbon dioxide, because it is so central to everything that we do and hard to imagine replacing. 

What happened next  Well, the acid rain issue largely went away because the amount of coal being burned decreased for various reasons. The coal had slightly less sulphur in It, etc. The eco-concern fizzled out by 1992. Everyone was exhausted of staring into the abyss, and those few who had tried to get arms of the state to respond were simply exhausted and demoralised.

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: 

 March 30, 1948 – The Conservation Foundation founded

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

March 30, 2007 – economist Nick Stern in Australia

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

Categories
Sweden

 March 29, 1974 – Negative Greenhouse Effect seminar in Uppsala, Sweden 

On this day fifty two years ago, a workshop on the Greenhouse Efect takes place in Uppsala, Sweden….

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that warnings about carbon dioxide build-up were rare, but not unheard of, by the late 1960s in Europe (I am hampered by a partial lack of language skills – I have written and spoken Portuguese, some French and Danish, but that’s it).

The specific context was that the Swedes probably had a reasonable grasp, thanks to their “environmental turn” in the late 1960s. Olof Palme, Prime Minister, was briefed on the problem in 1974 by German meteorologist Herman Flohn. (LINK).

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known, for two generations. We have failed to act.

What happened next.  We failed!! 

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

Xx

Also on this day: 

March 29, 1979 – Health impacts of carbon dioxide discussed…

March 29, 1993 – C02 Disposal symposium takes place in Oxford

March 29, 1995 –  “a transparent attempt to promote the Australian coal industry”

March 29, 1995- Kuwaiti scientist says if global warming happening, it’s not fossil fuels. #MRDA

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

 1980 – Idiotic climate paper published in Science

Forty six years ago on this day, March 26th, 1980 a truly pathetic paper found its way into the pages of Science.

Idso, S. 1980 – The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth’s Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

The abstract ran(t) as follows. [source]

The mean global increase in thermal radiation received at the surface of the earth as a consequence of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content is calculated to be 2.28 watts per square meter. Multiplying this forcing function by the atmosphere’s surface air temperature response function, which has recently been determined by three independent experimental analyses to have a mean global value of 0.113 K per watt per square meter, yields a value of </= 0.26 K for the resultant change in the mean global surface air temperature. This result is about one order of magnitude less than those obtained from most theoretical numerical models, but it is virtually identical to the result of a fourth experimental approach to the problem described by Newell and Dopplick. There thus appears to be a major discrepancy between current theory and experiment relative to the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. Until this discrepancy is resolved, we should not be too quick to limit our options in the selection of future energy alternatives.

And a few weeks later, there was this exchange…

From ‘Effects of Carbon Dioxide Buildup in the Atmosphere’, Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, April 3, 1980:

“Senator (Dale) BUMPERS. . . The fact that there has been no political response to the testimony we have had here for at least 3 years, the last 3 years, about the potential for dramatic climatic effect upon the earth by the buildup of CO2 (the point that the whole problem is such a long term problem) is well taken.

“Congress has not responded and we are getting some conflicting information too. People who have testified have not been . . . precise and definitive. …

“For example, ‘Science magazine’ on March 28 estimated that the average Earth temperature rise from doubling the world’s atmospheric CO2 is about 26 hundredths of one degree Celsius, which is about 1 tenth of the value generally estimated.

“Dr. (Gordon) MACDONALD (Chief Scientist of MITRE Corporation). Could I comment on that point?

“Senator BUMPERS. Yes.

“Dr. MACDONALD.I have looked in detail at that paper. It is a very strange paper.

“Senator BUMPERS. Shall I throw it away?

“Dr. MACDONALD. Yes. The final result is the product of two numbers. One is described very badly. The other is described as a result of the search under preparation. One can reconstruct the reasoning and do the proper calculations, and would have to multiply the second number by a factor of six, the first number by a factor of two to get the proper description, so that number is off by a factor of about 12.

“Dr. (William) KELLOGG (Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research): I quite agree with what Dr. MacDonald has said. The conclusion is based on a calculation at the surface at a point. It does not apply to the global carbon dioxide question as it stands.

“Dr. MACDONALD. That is correct.”

(Quoted in William Barbat’s wonderful CO2 Newsletter.)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that there are always scientists who need to be “edgy”. And that is fine, because science needs doubt, conflict etc.  But it has to be, you know, robust. Not demented.

The specific context was that Idso had form

What I think we can learn from this is that Idso was not the sharpest tool in the box. 

What happened next. Idso kept Idsoing. He’s dead now, which is a tragedy for climate science.

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

Barbat in CO2 Newsletter

Also on this day: 

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Categories
Energy United States of America

March 28,  1984 – Exxon guy presents on CO2

Forty two years ago, on this day, March 28th, 1984, an Exxon scientist presented on climate change. 

They knew. Exxon knew.


March 28 1984  Exxon guy – Henry Shaw, Presentation to EUSA/ER&E Environmental Conference: CO2 Greenhouse and Climate Issues

7, 14 (Mar. 28, 1984), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6530733-1984-Exxon-Henry-ShawPresentation-CO2/. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Exxon, by the late 70s, was fully switched on to the problem of carbon dioxide build up, and had allowed its tankers to be used to collect samples. Exxon knew, in other words, this is one of the last public or semi public discussions of CO2 that Exxon would do without casting doubt and denial, which began in ‘88. 

What I think we can learn from this is that well Exxon kept on knowing but the weather changed within the C suite, and they basically decided denial was their friend for their business model.

What happened next

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: 

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

March 27, 1990 – Greenweek on carbon capture

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 27th, 1990,

On this day, the publication Greenweek has a news article titled

“Radical way to take carbon dioxide from power stations”

“A dramatic fall in greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised Hunter Valley in NSW could come about if the Hunter Technology Group can proceed with studies of a radical method of removing carbon dioxide emissions from power stations.

“The group is seeking $150,000 from the NSW Government to study a proposal whereby carbon dioxide emissions would be pumped along ground-level pipelines to rural and forest areas, rather than be sent through smokestacks into the atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Green Week had been set up by an enterprising journalist, I think in the beginning of 1989  and was doing exactly what it said, publicising events and policy discussions, etc. And here we see discussion in its early stages of quote, carbon capture and storage a fantasy, if ever there were one. 

The specific context was that all sorts of bullshit was being bullshitted at this time.

What I think we can learn from this is that the carbon capture and storage thing, which had started in the mid 1970s as a putative solution to CO2 build up, was there in the undergrowth in the 90s.

What happened next

The fantasy technology staggers on. The amount of CO2 actually captured is pitiful, especially if you take out the stuff that is used for enhanced oil recovery. 

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: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27, 1971 – Norwegian Tabloid talks about the climate threat 

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

March 27, 1995 – former Nature editor John Maddox admits was wrong on Greenhouse, without, er, admitting it.

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Categories
Energy Nuclear Power

March 28, 1979 – Three Mile Island 

Forty seven years ago on this day, March 26th, 1979,

The Three Mile Island accident was a partial nuclear meltdown of the Unit 2 reactor (TMI-2) of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, located on the Susquehanna River in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The reactor accident began at 4:00 a.m. on March 28, 1979, and released radioactive gases and radioactive iodine into the environment.[2][3] It is the worst accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history, although its small radioactive releases had no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public.[4] The accident was the largest release of radioactive material in U.S. history until it was exceeded by the Church Rock uranium mill spill four months later.[5] On the seven-point logarithmic International Nuclear Event Scale, the TMI-2 reactor accident is rated Level 5, an “Accident with Wider Consequences”.[6][7]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was there had been high hopes for nuclear in the 1950s – “electricity too cheap to meter” and all that.  The coal industry had fought back, and so had, well, reality and economics.

The specific context was that the 1973-4 Oil Shock had concentrated everyone’s minds.

What I think we can learn from this is that every technology comes with costs.

What happened next – anti-nuclear activists highlighted the dangers. A few of those worried about carbon dioxide (especially William Barbat), tried to say there were bigger dangers. 

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

Barbat in CO2 Newsletter

Also on this day: 

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”