On this day, Jan 19, in 2015 “four of Europe’s biggest power utilities, represented in Brussels by Eurelectric, have decided to leave the European Commission’s CCS Technology Platform ZEP.“
The four were Germany’s RWE AG, France’s Electricite de France, Sweden’s Vattenfall AB and Spain’s Gas Natural Fenosa.
The ZEP had been set up in the mid-2000s as “a coalition of companies, scientists and environmental groups seeking ways to capture and bury heat-trapping carbon emissions mainly from the exhausts of coal, oil and gas-fired power plants.”
“Of the move, Bellona Europa Director Jonas Helseth said: – In their poorly concealed attempts to attain capacity payments, Europe’s utilities have misused the trust of the European Commission and Europe’s CCS community. It’s shameless how Eurelectric proudly announces the formation of a new CCS taskforce and ‘calls on policymakers to push ahead’, while simultaneously pulling out of Europe’s largest and widest coalition working on CCS.”
What happened next
Is there any CCS?
Why this matters.
We keep assuming we can deploy these technologies at massive scale, rapidly, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of the ways we avoid looking at how much some of us are emitting. There is trouble ahead.
“A major new effort to develop jobs which protect the environment”, was how the January 18 joint statement by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Conservation Foundation described their joint Green Jobs in Industry Plan. The scheme was launched at the Visyboard Paper and Cardboard Recycling Plant in Melbourne by Peter Baldwin, minister for higher education and employment services.”
This came at the tail end of concern about “Ecologically Sustainable Development.” Its champion, Bob Hawke, had been toppled, the new Prime Minister (Paul Keating) was not – to put it mildly – a fan of environmentalists and their concerns. The whole thing must have seemed doomed (and it was).
What happened next? Well, does Australia have the environmental jobs sector it could/should have? Or the carbon tax (the ACTU had a role, in 1995, of scuppering one).
Why this matters – we need to realise that getting greenies and union types together is a lot harder than it looks/”should” be. We need to think about previous failed efforts, and why they failed. But we tend not to, because it would raise awkward questions and make us feel bad.
On January 17th 2007, fifteen years ago today, a joint letter was penned and signed by scientists and evangelical leaders in the US, in which they stated ‘We declare that every sector of our nation’s leadership—religious, scientific, business, political, and educational—must act now to work toward the fundamental change in values, lifestyles, and public policies required to address these worsening problems before it is too late. There is no excuse for further delays.’
In the autumn of last year, the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion, came together for the first time to make a joint statement. In their statement, they warned of the urgency of environmental sustainability, its impact on poverty, and the importance of global cooperation. Pope Francis, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the Archbishop of Canterbury together asked people to pray, stating ‘We call on everyone to endeavour to listen to the cry of the earth and of people who are poor, examining their behaviour and pledging meaningful sacrifices for the sake of the earth which God has given us.’
What does a faith perspective offer in a climate emergency? What should Christians be saying and doing?
Full disclosure – I am a CofE priest in England. My response to these statements comes unapologetically from this perspective. The first statement is from the US, which is a very different faith context to here in the UK. So, this is a personal reflection on what faithful response to climate issues can be. It won’t be to everyone’s cup of tea. But it’s all I have to give.
I mentioned in a recent book (1) that I’d had a conversation with a minister who expressed reticence about engaging with ‘green issues’ as they were worried about the time this would take away from mission and evangelism – from the work of getting people into church. It is a fundamental calling of Christians to reach out and grow disciples, but it is also a fundamental calling to steward creation. The former seems to take precedence in a way that sounds dangerously close to a capitalist approach at times – grow quick, numbers matter, income is key and so on. Prioritising growth has, in the secular world, led to a lot of the issues we now face in the climate crisis. In Church, we are now given statistics and targets to meet regarding congregational growth. This, I fear, leads to the very discussion I had with the minister – where creation care is seen as an additional burden, rather than integral to our calling.
This is a complex issue. I am friends with some wonderful Christian activists who, whilst the wider Church has seemed slow and silent, have taken action and raised the profile of the climate emergency and pushed the conversation into the wider sphere. They have been jailed and risked much in their activism and I deeply admire them. But I also know that, sometimes, the rush to activism has left people behind, has antagonised others, and has spoken from too narrow a perspective, and revealed white western privilege and bias. And, my own rush to ‘do’ has pushed me close to burnout.
When I read the two statements above – the one from fifteen years ago, and the one from last year and my gut reaction was – well, nothing much has changed, has it? We have said a lot, but what have we actually done? But, then, I noticed something. A fundamental difference between the two statements, that caused me to pause. The first statement calls, unequivocally, for action. The second, however, calls for us to listen, to reflect and then to respond.
Maybe, what we should be doing, as a Church is much more listening. We need to listen with our whole heart to the earth as it groans and feel that within our soul. We need to stop and give our full attention to the cries of our siblings across the world. We need to put our hands in the soil, inhale the air, wade into the waters, and remember our place within creation and our intrinsic connection to the land, the seas, and to each other.
Alastair McIntosh, a quaker and environmentalist, writes a lot about this and acknowledges that such contemplation, such reconnection with our deeper selves and the earth, will not impact immediately on climate change (2). Indeed, it may be very frustrating for people who see the urgency of the climate emergency and hear this call to listen as another way of pushing action further down the line whilst the earth and many of our neighbours suffer. I understand that and feel it. The Church is very good at talking about things and not taking the radical action that is often needed. I can’t pretend I have all the answers to any of this.
Intentional listening and discernment, however, is not inaction. And, through it may emerge a deeper understanding of what it means to live in a world on the precipice of ecological breakdown. With this, words from the Church may be less weighed down by soundbites and hold greater integrity, and faithful action may become more inclusive, more compassionate, more meaningful and more sustainable.
References
(1) Thomas, G and Coleman, M (2021). Climate action as mission. Cambridge: Grove Books
(2) McIntosh, A (2020) Riders on the Storm. Edinburgh: Berlinn ltd
Biography
Grace Thomas is an Anglican priest in Manchester Diocese, where she is also a Diocesan Environment Officer. She is also a programme lead and tutor at Luther King Centre Theological College. Grace has co-authored the Grove book ‘Climate Action as Mission’ and has also contributed a chapter to Hannah Malcolm’s book ‘Words for a Dying World’. She regularly appears on BBC Radio Four as a Daily Service presenter and on Radio Two as a Pause for Thought contributor. Grace is currently a doctoral student looking at pastoral responses to the climate emergency
Welcome to week 03 of “All Our Yesterdays – 365 climate histories.”
Last week saw the 50th anniversary of the release of “A Blueprint for Survival”, which I am fascinated by – how it was received, what happened next. But the anniversary passed without notice or discussion – oh well!
One of the success metrics (not the most important, is to have 2000 Twitter followers by the end of the year. Moved from 64 or whatever to 84. Hmm – have followed some more people, but this is going to be a slog, obvs.
Another is to have 50 guest posts, with 25 of those by people of colour, and for 25 of all the guest posts to be by people who identify either as non-binary or female. For January, we will be on track with both those.
As ever, keen to hear from people who are up for proof-reading, proposing dates, writing guest posts…
What you may have missed in the last week on the site
Rather a lot of Australia stuff, I am afraid, back to 1992, 2010 and so on. But also – and am super-proud of this – the second guest post on the site, going up tomorrow, and on religion…
What’s coming up in the next week in the real world
A couple of select committee hearings of note, if you are in the UK…
On this day 27 years ago corporate interests met in Canberra (political capital of Australia) in their ongoing struggle against a dreaded (although tiny) proposed carbon tax. The business press had the story –
Callick, R. 1995. Industry forces gather to slow carbon tax momentum. Australian Financial Review, 16 January, p.8.
REPRESENTATIVES of a substantial group of Australian industries meet in Canberra today to draft a joint response to invitations issued by the Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, for separate talks over the next fortnight on his carbon tax proposal.
I could go on and on about this (in fact, I once did).
What happened next – Faulkner withdrew his proposal. The idea of a tax in and of itself mostly died (though see the Greens’ proposal in the aftermath of Kevin Rudd failing to get the CPRS through). Australia still doesn’t price carbon.
Why this matters. It’s good to see how business interests combine and co–ordinate their efforts. It turns out, that, as the song goes, “there’s power in a union.” Especially a union of corporate giants. Who knew.
On this day in 1971, at the conference of the “Economic Council of the Forest Products Industry” in Phoenix Arizona some chap called Richard W. Darrow gave a speech “Communication in an Environmental Age”
“We will do those things that earn us attention and gain us understanding, or we will live out the remainder of our professional lives in the creeping, frustrating, stultifying, stifling grasp of unrealistic legislative restraints and crippling administrative restriction. A public that ought to understand us – and thank us for what we are and what we do – will instead clamor for our scalps.”
There was, as you can see, a real panic in business circles. The fear was that previously quiescent ‘citizens’, at first cowed by so-called “McCarthyism”[it pre-dated that drunk] and then stupefied by consumerism – might actually get up on their hind legs. If they demanded real regulation, real control, so the planet didn’t get turned into an uninhabitable slagheap, then the fun times (for business) would be over. In 1971, before neoliberalism, before pervasive computing, before all the other wonders that the last 51 years have brought us, such fears were legit.
What has happened since? The kinds of “public relations” “professionals” Darrow represented have honed their game. Seven months later, the Powell Memorandum and the rise of the neoliberal think tanks. The crushing of labour unions, the spectacularisation of everything (to go all Debord for a minute). Greenwash, the constraining of imagination, the destruction of hope. Yeah, it’s not looking good for our species, is it?
Conley continues – “Having established a special unit to provide services on environmental health issues in 1966, Hill & Knowlton became a leading advocate and provider of environmental PR in the 1970s and beyond.”
[Update 31st January – see foot of this post for comment by David Taylor]
On Friday 14th January 1972 a bombshell report, ‘A Blueprint for Survival,’ was released onto an increasingly worried world. Produced by the team at The Ecologist, it laid out not just the environmental and social problems, but also offered – the clue is in the name – a blueprint for survival.
Fifty years is a nice round number for reflecting, and this 30 page report [pdf, word.doc] is designed to help with that.
It explains little of the background to the report – the world it entered, who wrote it, how it was received
It doesn’t go into a great deal of detail about what the Blueprint actually says – read it yourself!
It does however talk about what happened next – what the media response, and the political response was [spoilers – scientists warning of trouble ahead will be derided as scare-mongerers, the public’s attention span is short, it’s really hard to ‘capture the moment’ – to do so you need absorptive capacity up the wazoo].
For any Doctor Who fans out there – there’s mention of two classic Pertwee stories.
It then talks a bit about the longer-term, and the birth of the “Ecology Party” (now known as the Green Party), before turning to some of the lessons we might learn around
Abeyance
Absorptive Capacity
Arrogance
Would love to hear people’s comments
Comment received on 31st January 2022 by one of the people behind the excellent “Green History UK” website.
I’ve read your article and it’s got loads of good perspectives. Hopefully we can add that to the site as well.
I trust you won’t mind if I draw your attention to one or two issues where I have a different perspective:-
The founders of PEOPLE always wrote the name in capitals, not lower case.
They did not, initially call themselves a ‘political party’. If you look at the early PEOPLE literature you will see that they were always just called ‘PEOPLE’. On some occasions (as on the material advertising the Jigsaw Conference) they referred to themselves as a ‘movement’. . Lesley W had researched the issue and found that you didn’t have to be a ‘party’ to contest an election, so they weren’t. It was others, particularly journalists, who referred to them as a ‘party’, because they contested elections. This later led to PEOPLE referring to themselves as both a ‘movement’ and a ‘party’.
In that it intended to contest elections Movement for Survival was as much a ‘party’ as PEOPLE. The two movements had similar strategies. This isn’t surprising as PEOPLE arose directly from Survival. The similarity wasn’t just because PEOPLE took over Movement’s box of contacts. The PEOPLE founders were also supporters of Movement and the Whittakers, in particular, had been meeting with Teddy throughout 1972. Teddy told me back then how delighted he was to have found a group of professional people (estate agent, solicitors) to take over Movement. There was no formal handover but the reality was that PEOPLE grew directly out of Movement, and took it over. There is a widespread misconception (reinforced by repetition) that the modern Green Party began when PEOPLE was publicly launched in February 1973. This ‘fact’ was one of the answers in a recent Mastermind quiz. The truth is that Survival’s launch, in the January edition of the Ecologist magazine, marked the actual beginning of the global movement of green parties.
You describe Goldsmith as ‘authoritarian’. During his time he was labelled many things -all of them wrong really. There were no good labels for what he was espousing. This is understandable as he was originating a new political philosophy and it didn’t fit comfortably into any of the existing categories. You describe Blueprint as promoting ‘radical de-centralisation’. I think this phrase better describes Teddy’s outlook. He was, after all, a big admirer of the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin…
Thank you for what you’re doing. We need this history!
On this day, 17 years ago, the UN Secretary-General called for “decisive measures” on climate change.
“PORT LOUIS, MAURITIUS, 13 January — The United Nations Conference convened here to address the economic and environmental vulnerabilities of small island developing States opened its high-level segment today, with Secretary-General Kofi Annan calling for ‘decisive measures’ against climate change and a global early warning system in the wake of last month’s Asian tsunami disaster.”
What happened next. Oh, lots of decisive measures. And if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you, in Sydney.
Why it matters. People keep investing hope in these international processes, as if someone is gonna arrive to save them. God help us all (see what I did there?). What Annan could have said was “The UNFCCC process is a farce. The lack of targets and timetables in the Framework Convention – because of Uncle Sam doing what Uncle Sam always does – means it’s a relentless talking shop. Probably in 16 years they’ll still be holding ‘last chance to save the planet’ meetings. I mean, wtaf.
Jan 12, 1983 – RIP Carroll Wilson, “master organizer in world of science” (and early climate connector)
On this day, in 1983, a man died who you’ve almost certainly never heard of, but is one of the many who tried – ultimately unsuccessfully – to raise the alarm over 50 years ago.
“Wilson then turned to larger issues, pioneering a new format for studying and publicizing major scientific problems in world development. In 1970, for the first study, he assembled a multi-disciplinary group that produced, in one month, Man’s Impact on the Global Environment. The study was an important catalyst of debate within the U.S. on the greenhouse effect and other major environmental consequences of technology, including the SST. The following year Wilson brought together 35 atmospheric scientists from 15 countries in Stockholm to produce Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate.”
Here’s a four page article on him, which has him as crucial midwife to the Limits to Growth report –
“The chain of events which led to the book began when Carroll Wilson introduced Jay Forrester, S.M. ’45, head of the System Dynamics Group at M.I.T., to the Club of Rome – an independent, international forum for the “great issues.” Forrester saw that the problems of growing complexity considered by the Club of Rome lent themselves to computer modeling. He produced two models and one of his collaborators produced a third on which some of Forrester’s colleagues based The Limits to Growth.”
And here is a jpg of an obituary which calls him “a master organizer in the world of science”.
Why it matters – we should pause to remember the efforts of the Revelles, the Bolins, the Wilsons and others. It wasn’t for lack of warning from scientists that we stuffed this one up. And hoping that another scientist will turn up, with just the right graph, and just the right tone of voice, is at best stupid. At worst it is a wilful refusal to be a citizen.
It sparked national and worldwide anti-smoking efforts. But of course, as documented in the “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Stephen Conway, the tobacco industry was waaay ahead of the curve, having started highly effective campaigns to cast doubt on the science, and then to reframe it all as “personal responsibility”. Sound familiar? It should: the subtitle of the must-read Oreskes and Conway book is “How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”. Why it matters. This “agnotology” (the creation of ignorance) has been a staggeringly successful tool of predatory delay. And “education” is no defence. In fact, those who’ve received “good” educations are often more vulnerable to insidious propaganda and careful framing than those who did not have the right clothes, accent, habitus to get through the obstacle course and win the prizes. If educated people (including the author of this blog) had gotten off – and stayed off – their asses in the early 90s, we might – just might – not be looking down the business end of 4 degrees by the end of the century. Oops
