Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 12th, 2009,
Oct 12th 2009 Stephen Chu, US Secretary of Energy writes in an open letter “I believe we must make it our goal to advance carbon capture and storage technology to the point where widespread, affordable deployment can begin in 8 to 10 years.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2026, 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 Obama had appointed some smart, high-profile people into his administrations, including Stephen Chu
And of course, if you want things to happen, you have to tell compelling stories, but sometimes stories are just stories.
Thespecificcontext was just before Copenhagen, which is supposed to be the last chance to save the earth (until the next last chance to save the earth. Reader, we never save the earth) comes this announcement full of optimism and brim and technosalvationism.
What I think we can learn from this is that smart people say stupid things, or things that turn out later to have been very stupid. I suppose maybe there’s a universe in which CCS was indeed rolled out – widespread affordable deployment – but we are not living in that universe.
What happened next. CCS hype cycle came to a shuddering halt, but has been re-hyped, re-inflated.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Twenty seven years ago, on this day, October 11th, 1999,
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has opened the competition for companies to begin designing a new type of energy facility that could change public perceptions about fossil fuel fired power plants. DOE will initially offer as much as $30 million to qualified projects.
Anon. 1999. DoE sets sights on clean burning fossil fuel power plants. Coal Week, Vol 25, no. 41, 11 October.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2026, 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 Kyoto Protocol had been negotiated in December 1997. Various nations had signed, but not yet ratified, and therefore attention was beginning to turn to so-called “clean coal”, because many nations were industrial nations still dependent on coal, and everything that could make it “cleaner” was a good thing. Of course, the language of clean coal has been around since, well, at least the early 70s, and looking to think of those Wall Street Journal adverts, but also further back.
What I think we can learn from this is that we’re smart enough to figure out how to find and burn carboniferous ego energy, so sources, we’re smart enough to figure out that that is going to cause mayhem, we’re not smart enough to figure out how to get ourselves off the fossil fuels and therefore, mayhem is locked in.
What happened next. All the clean coal bullshit got upgraded as various carbon capture and storage – CCS – strategies and proposals, and sequestration leadership forums and bold announcements about money that would be spent, Futuregen
And what do we have to show for it? Half of fuck all.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 10th, 1994,
The Federal Government has appealed for more time to meet its greenhouse gas emission commitments amid increasing international pressure for a tougher world response at a Climate Change meeting in Berlin next March.
The appeal from the Federal Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, follows his recent admission that Australia’s own efforts at reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been less than successful.
Senator Faulkner told an environmental conference in New Zealand yesterday that Australia would not be in a position to sign an agreement on greenhouse gas emissions at the March 1994 [sic] meeting in Berlin…. But Senator Faulkner’s delayed admission that Australia will not meet its targets for greenhouse gas emissions has been criticised by the Australian Mining Industry Council’s new executive director, Mr David Buckingham.
“Too often in the recent past, Australia has been caught short in its appreciation of both the potential and likely impacts of new treaty instruments,” Mr Buckingham told an AMIC workshop yesterday.
“This is only likely to change if a far closer process of community and industry involvement with the development of Australia’s negotiating position is achieved,” he said. “Damage limitation assessment after the event is not a responsible, or effective, way in which to proceed.”
Dwyer, M. 1994. Canberra wants more time to meet greenhouse gas pledges. The Australian Financial Review, October 11.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2026, 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 Australian political elites had by this time been well informed and gotten sick and tired of the greenhouse gas build up issue, and they had said no to a carbon tax once before in the period 1991-92 and here we see a second bite at that cherry.
Thespecificcontext was that John Faulkner had thought it was a good idea to bring in a carbon tax, because this would raise some revenue, and it would also be something to show at the first conference of the parties to be held in March-April of 1995. Otherwise, Australia would be basically empty-handed. But there were difficulties, of course, because the carbon tax was hated by the people who would have to pay it. Also, the very principle! Accepting a carbon tax is then admitting that greenhouse gases are a problem, and it has knock-on reputational effects.
What I think we can learn from this is that it’s now pushing 40 years of policy failure on climate change and that’s not going to change. We have fundamentally and totally missed the opportunity to do anything meaningful. Even with enormous efforts, it was still going to be really fucking difficult. We made no significant efforts, and it’s going to be hell on earth, and on the oceans, and in the skies, and everywhere.
What happened next Australia got a carbon price, very briefly, between 2012 and 2014.
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
A report by DEFRA and spooks was supposed to be released, but the launch – at the Science Museum – was cancelled at the last minute. A redacted version of the report has come out.
Fiona Harvey of the Guardian has done some good reporting on this.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 427ppm. As of 2026, 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 there was supposed to be a launch of a new report by DEFRA and with support from the spooks. Then the plug got pulled, and there have been attempts to get a Freedom of Information Act request-based information about it, all this has failed. The British state is utterly incapable of being democratic or transparent, and it will be no better under Andy Burnham. I’m saying, I’m narrating this in early July before he has become Prime Minister, it’ll be hitting your eyeballs, obviously, on October the ninth, and we’ll find out if I was right.
Thespecificcontext was the COP was coming up and the British didn’t want to embarrass the hosts, Brazil.
What I think we can learn from this we are utterly doomed.
What happened next – we continued to be very very stupid.
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 8th, 2012,
The Office of Climate Change of Renewables Innovation is established: The Office brings together the Clean Energy Regulator, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, ARENA, the Climate Change Authority and the climate change and renewable energy functions of the Department of the Environment.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 395ppm. As of 2026, 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 in the aftermath of Copenhagen and before the road to Paris came along, there was still movement on renewables and innovation in various countries around the world, because technologies were maturing and the public appetite hadn’t completely died away, and you could see in the distance that renewables would eventually be price competitive with fossil fuels.
Thespecificcontext was that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard had successfully shepherded the Clean Energy Package through parliament, and now there was the need for a ‘co-ordinating’ office.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are always these little bodies, offices formed. They give a minister a feeling of importance. They give a sand pit to play in, and then you see them produce a couple of reports, maybe host a conference, some legislation gets passed, they’re swallowed or abolished, and the carousel continues. At their best, you don’t even notice them. At their worst (or in their absence) you do.
What happened next
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Sixty five years ago, on this day, October 7th, 1961,
“Changes of Climate symposium” Symposium on Changes of Climate with Special Reference to Arid Zones, World Meteorological Organization, Rome, 2-7 October 1961
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 317ppm. As of 2026, 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 modern theory of carbon dioxide build-up as a problem had been launched in May of 1953 by Gilbert Plas, building on the work of John Tyndall, Svante Argennius, and Guy Callender.
Meanwhile, the United Nations in the aftermath of World War Two had organised countless conferences and symposia about what the future would look like and what humans could do, and within those conferences, there would be symposia by involving various experts within a particular field, and here we see a symposium within the climate field.
Thespecificcontext was that this is just after JFK’s address to the United Nations General Assembly, and the push for action on weather modification, which at this time was still considered doable and good.
What I think we can learn from this is that at events like this, and also the IUGGs in Toronto and Helsinki in 1957 and 1960 respectively, and the New York Academy of Sciences symposium in January of 1961 a few people were beginning to look at carbon dioxide and say, “you know, this could get a little interesting.”
What happened next Well, it got a little interesting.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Twenty two years ago, on this day, October 6th, 2004,
Quitting your job may not be the definition of a splurge, but for Dr Graeme Pearman, until last year head of the division of atmospheric research at the CSIRO, that’s what it took for him to see more of his grandchildren.
Vincent, P. 2004. How does Dr Graeme Pearman spoil himself? Sydney Morning Herald, October 6, p. 4.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 378ppm. As of 2026, 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 Graham Pearman had been counting carbon since the early 1970s. He had attended two pivotal scientific meetings in 1977, in Miami Beach, and then Germany, and had returned to Australia to try to inform and galvanise scientists. Pearman had also been instrumental in the 1980 symposium. Pearman had organised the 1987 planning for greenhouse conference, and briefed Keating’s cabinet in 1994. Anyway, there’s only so much bullshit a man can take, and Pearman had had his fill by this point.
Thespecificcontext was the Howard government’s endless climate criminality can wear a man down.
What I think we can learn from this is that our politicians are not fit for purpose (if the purpose is a habitable planet. If it’s short-term comfort and profit for a thin sliver of the population, then they’re great).
What happened next is that there are scientists Jim Hansen, Stephen Schneider, Kevin Anderson, plenty of others, I mean hundreds of others who have spent their lives trying to sound the warning. And their warnings have fallen on largely willfully deaf ears. That is less to do with the scientists and the facts and more to do with greed, stupidity, and organised enforced ignorance. And the weakness of civil society.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
The fourteenth edition of the CO2 Newsletter, (Vol. 3, no. 2, Nov-Dec 1982) published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982 is live. You can download a pdf and see the full text here – CO2Newsletter Vol 3, No 2
The eight page issue has a front page story pointing out that “accelerating sea level rise is attributed to climate change.”
Yes, 1982, before many of you doomed-youth were born.
Read it and boggle at Barbat’s prescience and hard-graft. That he failed to warn us all was not on him (though see meme below). Goddam what a bunch of hairless murder apes (feeling particularly doomy at mo, ignore me).
The rest of the issue is what you’ll have come to expect – quotes, carefully curated excerpts of recent reports. All horrible stuff to read in 2026, but you have to admire the man’s efforts.
Forward-thinking people are preparing for the greenhouse effect. Barge companies on the Mississippi are acquiring railroads in case the river becomes permanently unnavigable. Planners of Boston’s sewage treatment system are taking into account a sea-level rise from global warming. The Weyerhaeuser company is planting drought-resistant trees. The Dutch are raising their dikes.
Either this behavior is certifiably crazy, or it’s an apt assessment of the craziness of the human race as a whole — a reasoned bet that we will be stupid enough to let the greenhouse effect happen, instead of stopping it.
I’m not that much of a pessimist. I think we’re rational animals, at least when it comes to economics. The economics of the greenhouse effect are quite clear. We can’t afford it.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2026, 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 greenhouse issue had exploded onto the public agenda in late ‘88, and then ‘89 you couldn’t move but for it.
Thespecificcontext was that Donella Meadows knew what she was talking about. She’d been co-author on The Limits to Growth.
What I think we can learn from this is that Meadows was right and Meadows was pointing out what the cost would be if we acted and what the cost would be if we didn’t act.
What happened next. We did not act. Meadows died far too young in 2001. And the emissions kept climbing, the concentrations kept climbing.
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
The third issue of the “El Niño Digest Times” is out now. It’s 8 pages of excerpts, quotes and images about the events unfolding as you read this. Download as a pdf or a word doc.
Tl;dr – there are going to be astonishing impacts, we’re at the end of the first (“antici….pation”) phase moving into the real stuff. Comments/suggestions welcome.
