Categories
Coal United Kingdom

February 14, 2015  – No love for coal from UK politicians

Eight years ago, on this day, February 14 , 2015, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband put aside their differences in order to focus on something they could all agree on: getting rid of unabated coal from our energy system. This level of agreement is almost unprecedented in the run-up to a general election and demonstrates the extent to which action to stop coal emissions has become a no-brainer.  See more here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Cameron, Miliband, and Clegg, all for various reasons, wanted to seem to be doing something on climate and coal was now largely friendless. It was being dug up in so few places that the employment implications were not there. So it was an easy win.

What I think we can learn from this

This sort of political bipartisanship, well tri-partisanship, will only happen if there’s a lot of public pressure, or an election coming, or if the issue can be circumscribed as “something must be done”, or a technology/sector is friendless enough to be beaten up.

What happened next

Cameron won the 2015 election outright and we started to see a rolling back of the weak climate actions that the Liberal Democrats had forced the Conservatives into – not that they’d ever been that hale and hearty to begin with

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Science Scientists

 February 13, 2007- Industry is defo allowed to silence scientists…

Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 13 2007, a Canberra Times journalist had a cracking story about the politics of knowledge.

The CSIRO has confirmed coal industry bodies have the power to suppress a new report questioning the cost and efficiency of clean-coal carbon capture technologies because they partly funded the research. Dr David Brockway, chief of CSIRO’s division of energy technology, told a Senate estimates committee hearing yesterday it was ”not necessarily unusual” for private-industry partners investing in research programs – such as Cooperative Research Centres – to request reports be withheld from public release if findings were deemed to be not in their best interests. His comments followed questions by Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne regarding the release of an economic assessment by a senior CSIRO scientist of a new carbon capture technology to reduce greenhouse emissions from coal-fired power stations.

Beeby, R. 2007. Industry can gag research: CSIRO. Canberra Times, 15 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

John Howard and his government had been systematically undermining all other organisations that might keep tabs on them, or forcefully propose alternatives.  Have a look at “Silencing Dissent” by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison for the gory (and they are gory) details.

What I think we can learn from this

Those who want things to stay the same will do whatever it takes to poke out the eyes and stuff up the mouths of anyone with brains and other ideas, while rewarding lackeys and toadies.

What happened next

Nothing good. The demolition of the CSIRO has, basically, continued. Oh well.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Activism United States of America

February 12 1968 – The Motherfuckers do their motherfucking thing, with garbage in New York.

February 12 1968 – The Motherfuckers do their motherfucking thing, with garbage in New York.

Fifty five years ago, on this day, February 12 1968, New York City was the scene of an inventive piece of activism.

“On February 12, 1968, a group of radicals led by Ben Morea collected garbage on the lower east side, trucked it, then dumped it in front of the Lincoln Center on a gala night. The event coincided with a NYC garbage strike and was meant to express both the group’s contempt for the bourgeois establishment and its support of the strikers.”

 (Gottlieb, 1993: 350)

and

COMPARE NATHAN HALE “BLACK ECOLOGY”

“No solution to the ecology crisis can come without a fundamental change in the economics of America particularly with reference to blacks. Although some of the ecological differentials between blacks and whites spring directly from racism and hence defy economic correlations,44 many aspects of the black environmental condition are associated with basic economics. Blacks are employed in the most undesirable or polluted occupations,45 lagging far behind their educational attainment. About two-thirds work in unskilled and semi-skilled industries. Aggravating, and associated with, the occupational effects on the black environment is the consistently low family income of blacks which must generally support larger families. Since the turn of the century, the family income of blacks has remained about half that of whites” (Hale, 1970: 7)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Vietnam War, black civil rights, the beginnings of second wave feminism were beginning to kick off, and poor people were getting shat on (for once). At this exact point, Martin Luther King was planning for his march on Washington in the summer of 1968 (he wouldn’t be there). And the Motherfuckers and black Mask were in that milieu. The idea of bringing the unwanted waste back to the people who produced it, for them to deal with, was an inspired one. It has become a famous action. 

What I think we can learn from this

Why am I talking about it on a climate change website? Because of exactly this. The super rich – and the rich – enjoying their/our imperial way of living, don’t want to know about or think about the consequences. The costs are out of sight and out of mind. Activism can be about making those costs more obvious.

What happened next

Oh, to the Motherfuckers I suppose the usual schisms and splits and anarchist pathologies. Possibly/probably helped on by COINTELPRO. But the FBI could have saved its money except of course for them it was all about the lulz and the need to dominate and control, but I’m going off on a tangent here 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Gottlieb, R. 1993. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Washington DC: Island Press.

Hale, N. 1970. Black Ecology. The Black Scholar Vol. 1, No. 6, BLACK CITIES: COLONIES OR CITY STATES?, pp. 2-8

Categories
United Kingdom

Feb 11, 1980 – First UK Government climate report released.

Forty two years ago, on this day, February 11, 1980, the first UK Government report on climate change was grudgingly released, after suggestions it should simply be filed away…(you’ll have to wait till July 27 for the gory details).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

After much internal lobbying and discussion from 1976 onwards – and resistance from Met Office supremo John Mason, an Interdepartmental Committee on Climate Change had finally been formed and held its first meeting in October 1978. It delivered its report in early 1979. The timing was bad because the new Thatcher Government was not particularly interested shall we say.

The report was lowest common denominator and trying to dismiss or minimise the issue. 

What I think we can learn from this

Official reports are always – whether it’s obvious or not –  “political”, and often intensely political. There have been battles about how strong the statements will be, whether it will even get released, when it will get released (Friday night before Christmas or a cup final or whatever). This was the UK government’s first Climate report and it wasn’t anything to write home about… 

What happened next

Civil servant Crispin Tickell tried to keep the flame alive. There’s a column from him in April 1980 In the times, which we will address in due course. But the climate issue bubbled under until 1988, with Thatcher paying no attention.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Australia

 February 11, 1993 – Liberal Party plans would not meet climate goals, says expert

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 11, 1993, with a Federal election campaign underway, an academic ran the numbers on the Liberal Party’s Fightback! policy and what it would mean…. 

According to the director of science and technology policy at Murdoch University, Fightback! would result in a six per cent increase in car use immediately, and 28 per cent in a few years.

The table shows that Australia is the third worst polluter in the OECD region and that our poor performance is very much related to low fossil-fuel prices.

If Australia is to get its carbon emissions down to a level comparable with other OECD countries, some form of carbon tax will have to be introduced.

International pressure to move in this direction is likely to intensify over the next decade

Davidson, K. 1993. Hewson Error Of Emission. The Age, 11 February, p.13. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

From late 1991 Opposition Leader John Hewson had been successfully attacking Labor with an even more neoliberal set of policies than Labor had been using. He called it “Fight Back!” Hewson had spooked a tired Bob Hawke and this gave Hawke’s former Treasurer Paul Keating an opportunity for a second bite at the leadership cherry.  Fight back indeed!  Fight Back!  marked the end of the Liberal experiment with appearing green, (see, January 15, blog post).

But Fightback! would, as per this report, mean that environment issues would be further down the policy agenda. And the quality of the human and natural environment would further decline.

What I think we can learn from this

The intense battles in the realm of politics, often two bald men fighting over a comb, bear no relation to the actual problems that the society or species faces. We mustn’t mistake all of that heat for light. 

The Green Party’s and greens of the world have been saying this for decades, I’m saying precisely nothing new here. But hopefully, by dint of repetition, it will get into my own head. 

As per February 5 blog post, we mistake the shadows on the wall for the reality. We think that because some planet-destroying goon is getting laughed out then progress is being made. And on the whole, it’s not. 

What happened next

Hewson went on to lose the unlosable election to Paul Keating. Environmental matters were nowhere to be seen.  Hewson over time, has had a semi Damascene conversion. I don’t know that anyone has ever asked him if he regrets the Fightback! stuff. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Australia

February 10, 2011 – Australia gets a “Climate Commission”

Twelve years ago, on this day, February 10 2011, Australian Environment Minister Greg Combet had something to say…

“The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, has announced the establishment of an independent Climate Commission, appointing the leading science communicator – Professor Tim Flannery – as Chief Commissioner.

Combet said the Climate Commission would provide expert advice and information on climate change to the Australian community.

“The Climate Commission has been established by the Gillard government to provide an authoritative, independent source of information for all Australians,” he said. “It will provide expert advice on climate change science and impacts, and international action. It will help build the consensus required to move to a clean energy future.”

The Climate Commission would have a public outreach role, he said, to help build greater understanding and consensus about reducing Australia’s carbon pollution.

Other members of the Climate Commission are Professor Will Steffen, Professor Lesley Hughes, Dr Susannah Eliott, Gerry Hueston and Roger Beale. The commissioners have expertise in a range of areas including climate change science, science communications, business, public policy and economics.

https://www.sustainabilitymatters.net.au/content/sustainability/news/launch-of-the-climate-commission-739695248

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard was trying to make a move in the climate wars which had sprung up from late 2009 when the Liberal Party’s Tony Abbott decided to call the science of climate change “absolute crap.” He became a lightning rod for a lot of people’s dissatisfaction, especially in the National Party. The idea of a commission was, I believe, that of Christine Milne of the Greens, not that Labor would necessarily be willing to admit that; Labor had been forced into an uneasy collaboration with the Greens because of the finely balanced 2010 election. The Greens insisted that Labor grasp the climate change nettle again, rather than kicking it all into the long grass.

What I think we can learn from this

These sort of top-down groups of experts are useful, but they need to be supplemented by vibrant, long lasting civil society organisations and social movement organisations. However, that requires people to innovate and do stuff differently and not fall victim to the usual movement pathologies such as the smugosphere, the emotacycle, ego-foddering etc.

What happened next

The Commission was destroyed by Tony Abbott, and then had no trouble setting up as “The Climate Council” in September 2013 (see this Guardian article).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Science Scientists

February 9, 1956 – Scientists puzzle over where the carbon dioxide is going….

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, February 9, 1956 scientist Hans Seuss  (cosmic rays) wrote to his colleague Roger Revelle (marine science, among other things)

“I am not too happy about the whole thing” – 

Weart, 1997, p 346, footnote 78

The thing he wasn’t happy about was being able to account for Gilbert Plass’s point about the build-up of atmospheric CO2…

Further context here, via an excellent 1990 book by Michael Oppenheimer and Robert Boyle, called “Dead Heat: The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect” (a race we have clearly lost, btw).

“According to Gordon MacDonald of the Mitre Corporation, who spent some time at Scripps during the 1950s, the Revelle-Suess collaboration  on the CO2 question was fortuitous, for neither was studying climate. Suess was interested in the cosmic rays that produce the carbon-14 isotope in the atmosphere. Revelle was an expert in marine sediments, which were the presumed graveyard for carbon removed from the air by the ocean. Suess and others had noted a small decline in the carbon-14 content of new tree rings versus ones that were fifty years older,  indicating that the carbon dioxide taken in by plants in recent years was deficient in carbon14 compared to earlier times. Fossil fuels are lacking in carbon-14 because it disintegrates by radioactivity over the eons of burial. The two scientists proposed that fossil-fuel combustion had gradually diluted the carbon-14 that is produced continually by cosmic rays, by adding the dominant carbon-12 to the atmosphere. In other words, emissions had not been removed completely and immediately by the ocean. From this and other data they surmised that carbon-dioxide levels would grow significantly in the future and affect climate.”

Oppenheimer M. and Boyle, R . (1990)  Dead Heat: The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect. London I.B. Tauris, page 224

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The scientists, Suess and Revelle were puzzling over what would become their seminal paper released in early 1957. That paper suggested that scientists had made an unsafe assumption, (based on Revelle’s 1930s work), that carbon dioxide would be absorbed by the ocean because the layers of the ocean mixed well. 

This kind of dissatisfaction and puzzling is what scientists are paid to do. If they didn’t, we’d still have “earth and air and fire and water” as per the Aristotlean version of The Elements song by Tom Lehrer.

What I think we can learn from this

Smart people have been puzzling on this for a long time, and came up with some good answers that should have had us sit up and take notice. But at a societal species level, that is too much to ask, because everyone has so much else going on at any given time. And if they don’t, it is “given” to them via pay cuts and reality television.

What happened next

Suess and Revelle published their paper. Revelle hired David Keeling to measure CO2 accurately. Other people paid attention. And here we are 70 years down the line with atmospheric concentrations 100 PPM higher than they were at the time.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Weart, S. 1997.  Global Warming, Cold War, and the Evolution of Research Plans. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences Vol. 27, No. 2 (1997), pp. 319-356

Categories
Uncategorized

Of cops and gardens

“Put out that joint right now!”, yells the cop.

“Of course”, I reply, almost without thinking. I rub the joint against the grass and show it to him.

“Smoking weed in front of the police station! Unbelievable!”, he mutters begrudgingly, and goes back in.

I’m still processing what just happened. I had just arrived at the urban garden, and as a welcome gesture somebody had handed me that joint. Right beside the fence of the garden lies the police station. Two different worlds very close to each other.

It’s the first time I’m working on this garden. While uprooting grass near the spinach, I’m having a conversation with two women about feminism. One of them criticizes how indigenous men from her hometown make their wives carry all their heavy stuff, including their babies, while they themselves don’t carry a thing besides a machete.

In their culture, I tell her, the men need to protect the women from the many dangers of the jungle. She then tells me her mother is indigenous and she was bullied and shamed growing up because of it.

Later on, as we’re starting to light a fire, another cop arrives. He’s asking what we’re gonna cook. We’re just gonna make some aguapanela, we explain. “Only aguapanela?”, he asks. “Y’all should add some alcohol to it”. Which is a really weird thing for a cop to say.

He also gives advice on how to light a fire in such a way that’s suitable for cooking. He is very knowledgeable. He probably comes from the countryside. But he keeps giving us orders, which feels weird. Before he leaves I shake his hand, ask him his name (he gives me his surname), and promise to bring him some aguapanela later.

The water is boiling. We add panela to it, as well as lemongrass, mint, rhubarb and a few other herbs from the garden. A fellow gardener tells us she, as a victim, was feeling very uncomfortable with that cop. This is supposed to be a safe space, she says, free from guns and uniforms. She doesn’t say what she’s a victim of, but it was probably cops. Or soldiers.

Two cops arrive on a motorbike. “Put that fire out”, one of them shouts. We approach the fence to talk to them and explain we have a permit from the city’s Botanical Garden. “We’ll see about that”, he replies. These cops clearly don’t belong to the police station because they arrived from the other side of the park.

We realize we don’t have any cups, so I go to a nearby tienda to buy some. When I come back, a middle-aged woman and her son are talking to some gardeners. Apparently they’re upset that there is a community garden here.

“Where do you live?”, she asks me, defiantly, when I join the conversation. I tell her my address. As it turns out, I live nearby, as do most of the other gardeners. But I know she was assuming I lived in a faraway, poorer part of town, and she was getting ready to tell me to go back there and make a fire there. Now she’s feeling uneasy but still tells me to go make a fire in my home.

I still try to explain to her this is an initiative to create a more sustainable way of living in the city, and to strengthen community bonds in the neighborhood. But her son replies that this is not a good park to have a garden because it attracts junkies.

They seem unable to truly say why they dislike the garden, but I assume they’re frightened conservatives. When the mother leaves, however, the son changes his tone and seems eager to learn about the garden. Even though he doesn’t stay for the aguapanela, he still asks for our numbers.

We’re drinking the aguapanela and doing some planning. We want this year’s garden activities to follow the Muisca calendar. But we don’t get very far because all of a sudden twenty cops arrive.

They stand defiantly at the fence and tell us it is forbidden to light fires in Bogotá, unless we have a permit from the Mayor’s ffice. This is a tense moment. We tell the policemen about a decree from the Botanical Garden, but they don’t seem to buy it. We don’t have that decree handy. We need to look it up on our phones.

An authoritarian woman arrives. She’s a city official. She’s accompanied by other city officials and some cops. “Put that fire down immediately”, she screams. We don’t comply. Somebody scrambles to find the decree and shows it to her on a phone, but she wants none of it. She’s asking for a permit, not a decree. Some of the gardeners get angry. One of them is recording the scene with her phone.

The police chief, however, is trying to de-escalate. He takes the phone we’re handing them, reads the relevant paragraph, and explains the situation to us. Apparently some neighbor called them because they didn’t like the fire. “These are fake environmentalists. They say they wanna protect the Earth, yet they burn wood” is what the neighbor had said. To be fair, that’s not a bad argument.

We end up putting out the fire as an act of goodwill. After all, this is a community thing, and if a neighbor is bothered by the smoke, we respect that. But why do they have to call the cops on us? And why do cops behave like butlers of rich people?

We still end up bringing some aguapanela to the police station later on.

Learn more about our urban garden at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100080354461241

Categories
Science United States of America

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

Fifty years ago, on this day, February 8 1973, American ecological thinker Barry Commoner talks greenhouse effect and fossil fuels to US politicians.

“This is a very complicated phenomenon, and a good deal of study is underway. But it seems to me that in the long run it would be best to get away from using fossil fuel.” https://climatebrad.medium.com/climate-hearings-af27a3886a43

February 8 — Dr. Barry Commoner, hearing on the Council on Energy Policy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was

Barry Commoner by this stage was “Mr. Environment.” He’d appeared on the cover of Time in February of 1970. His book “The Closing Circle”, and the other one were very well received and known. Commoner had been writing about, in passing, the buildup of CO2 for several years. And his statement here is a reasonable summation I guess of what was going on.

What I think we can learn from this

US politicians, especially House members and senators, were well informed or aware of the carbon dioxide buildup issue a lot earlier than you might think. The hilarious “Grant Swinger” parody that we will come to in the middle of the year makes more sense once you know this…

What happened next

Commoner ran for president in 1980, as did one of the Koch brothers. Neither of them troubled the scorebook particularly. In the short term, the first oil shock made all of this moot because coal was on the comeback (making Carl “Mr Coal” Bagge happy – we will come to this).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
United Kingdom

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 7 1979, the had of the Met Office John Mason, sent a deeply disingenuous letter to Kenneth Berrill, a senior civil servant who had been responsible for getting an interdepartmental committee formed to look at the possibility of climate change caused by carbon dioxide build-up, and what implications that would have for the UK.

 And early in 1979, [Mason] wrote directly to Berrill, describing the carbon dioxide problem as of ‘‘immediate importance’’ and assuring Berrill that he was pouring resources into the problem. This engagement with CO2 climate change represented an about-turn in Mason’s position.  (Martin-Nielsen, 2018)

CAB 164/1422 B. J. Mason to K. Berrill, re: ‘‘Economic Effects of Climatic Change,’’ 7 Feb 1979, KEW

This – February 1979 – was just as Mason was about to fly off to the First World Climate Conference in Geneva, where he would… make sure that carbon dioxide was not agreed as an immediate threat. Whether Berrill noticed, or cared, I don’t know….  You can read about Mason’s performance in Geneva in Stephen Schneider’s memoir “Science as a Contact Sport.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

John Mason, as head of the Meteorological Office had been dismissive of carbon dioxide build up as something to be concerned about for several years. The notion that this was a U-turn from Mason, is not necessarily accurate.. Another reading of the situation is that Mason was merely bending to reality because an Intergovernmental Committee on climate had already started meeting it in late 1978.

What I think we can learn from this

Behind any creation of a committee or a report, there is always politics that you don’t see usually at the time or even later – things that are either not leaked or kept secret or in fact, never actually written down, but said in passing and in corridors.

This creates problems for historians trying to recreate “what really happened.”  Secondly, we learn that people are capable of pretending they’ve changed their mind, if it is politically expedient for them to do so.

What happened next

The Climatic Change report was subjected to attempts to suppress it, and was finally released in February 1980 as a “nothing to see here” document. You can read about this in four days on this website.

References

Martin-Nielson, J. 2018. Computing the Climate: When Models Became Political. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences (2018) 48 (2): 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2018.48.2.223

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.