On this day, December 11 in 1895, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius read his would-eventually-be-’famous’ paper On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground at the Swedish Academy of Science.
Hamblyn, R. 2009. The whistleblower and the canary: rhetorical constructions of climate change. Journal of Historical Geography, Vol. 35, pp.223-236
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 295ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
Why this matters
This has become the touchstone for “how long we’ve known” pieces.
What happened next
Arrhenius’ assumptions (and those whose work he drew on) were challenged by Angstrom et al. The idea that a build up of carbon dioxide could cause warming was thrown in the dustbin, and – despite Guy Callendar – only really got pulled out in the 1950s…
On this day, December 10 1985, scientist Carl Sagan testified in front of a US senate hearing. He explained the basic physics of carbon dioxide build up and its consequences
“I’d like to stress that the greenhouse effect makes life on Earth possible. If there were not a greenhouse effect, the temperature would, as I say, be 30 centigrade degrees or so colder. And that’s well below the freezing point of water everywhere on the planet. The oceans would be solid after a while.
“A little greenhouse effect is a good thing, but there is a delicate balance of these invisible gases, and too much or too little greenhouse effect can mean too high or too low a temperature. And here we are pouring enormous quantities of CO2 and these other gasses into the atmosphere every year, with hardly any concern about its long-term and global consequences.”
“In the fall of 1985, the Senate held several hearings on the topic of global warming and climate change in response to the report of an international scientific conference held in Villach, Austria. These were the first hearings on climate change in the Senate since 1979. The House had held hearings on rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide under the guidance of Representative Albert Gore in 1981, 1982, and 1984. Senator David Durenberger observed presciently, in his opening statement to the December 1985 hearings on global warming, that `grappling with this problem [of climate change] is going to be just about as easy as nailing jello to the wall’ (SCEPW,1986a, p. 1).
(Pielke, 2000)
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 346ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
From the mid-1970s, scientists had been getting more certain of – and worried about – the impacts of dumping extraordinary amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They had turned up in Villach, Austria, in September of 1985, for a meeting organised by WMO and UNEP. (see here – October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns…
Forty years we’ve known, really. Those that knew were outspent, outgunned, outmanoeuvred by frightened and frightening goons for the status quo. The\ goons have been the death of us.
What happened next?
The Reagan Administration did everything it could to stop being bounced into a carbon dioxide treaty the way it had been (in its perception) on ozone. With a great deal of very consequential success. We’re so doomed, I cannot begin to tell you.
On this day, December 10, 1978 a five day Workshop co-hosted by the CSU and SCOPE
“Workshop on Climate/Society Interface” began in Toronto..
This was (presumably?!) a kind of sequel/follow up to the February 1978 IIASA workshop “Carbon Dioxide, Climate and Society” which had been cosponsored by WMO, UNEP, and SCOPE, February 21 – 24, 1978.
Papers included
Margolis, H. (December 1978) Estimating social impacts of climate change–What might be done versus what is likely to be done.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 335ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
On this day, December 9 in 1974, in the United Kingdom
“The Department of Energy launched a new energy efficiency programme on December 9th 1974, timed to reduce winter fuel use, but also anticipating a review by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee (Patterson 1978; Anderson 1993)”
We have been at this “Energy Efficiency” thing (whether to save money or ‘save the planet’) for a long long time, with not all that much to show for it, once you take Jevons Paradox into account. Oh well.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 330ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The first Oil Shock was shocking people and governments into “action” (or, at least, hand-wringing)
Why this matters.
Energy efficiency – always the bridesmaid…
What happened next?
Stagflation, a second shock, neoliberalism and a collapse in the oil price – bye-bye renewables!!! See you in another 30 years or so…
“On the evening of Tuesday, 8 December, 1981, the UK’s only commercial TV channel, ITV, broadcast an hour-long documentary called “Warming Warning”.
It was among the earliest occasions – possibly the earliest – anywhere in the world where a major broadcaster aired a documentary dedicated solely to the topic of human-caused climate change.
The documentary, which was made by the now-defunct Thames Television, has sat in the archives largely unseen ever since. Until now. “
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 340ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The IEA had held a meeting in about greenhouse gases in February. In September Tom Wigley gave a speech at a Uranium Institute seminar in London. Meanwhile, James Hansen et al. had published a paper in August, in Science (and the Reagan Administration had punished him by withdrawing already-agreed funds). Presumably these were a major push for the documentary…
Why this matters.
“We” “knew”. Our problem is not information. Our problem is power – who has it, in whose interests they wield it, how they are monitored, challenged etc.
What happened next?
It was only 7 years later, in 1988, that the issue “broke through”, and politicians had to take a position on it.
On this day, December 7 in 1928 – Noam Chomsky was born.
Happy 94th birthday, Noam.
Here’s a couple of quotes, for those of you who want a taste. The first is (obvs) on climate. The second is on… heroes…
“Take the Kyoto Protocol. Destruction of the environment is not only rational; it’s exactly what you’re taught to do in college. If you take an economics or a political science course, you’re taught that humans are supposed to be rational wealth accumulators, each acting as an individual to maximize his own wealth in the market. The market is regarded as democratic because everybody has a vote. Of course, some have more votes than others because your votes depend on the number of dollars you have, but everybody participates and therefore it’s called democratic. Well, suppose that we believe what we are taught. It follows that if there are dollars to be made, you destroy the environment. The reason is elementary. The people who are going to be harmed by this are your grandchildren, and they don’t have any votes in the market. Their interests are worth zero. Anybody that pays attention to their grandchildren’s interests is being irrational, because what you’re supposed to do is maximize your own interests, measured by wealth, right now. Nothing else matters. So destroying the environment and militarizing outer space are rational policies, but within a framework of institutional lunacy. If you accept the institutional lunacy, then the policies are rational.
Interview by Yifat Susskind, August 2001 [52]
And also, on heroes
I gather it’s your belief that when we focus on heroes in the movement, that’s a mistake, because it’s really the unsung heroes, the unsung seamstresses or whatever in this movement, who actually make a difference.
They’re the ones, yes. Take, say, the Civil Rights movement. When you think of the Civil Rights movement, the first thing you think of is Martin Luther King. King was an important figure. But he would have been the first to tell you, I’m sure, that he was riding the wave of activism, that people who were doing the work, who were in the lead in the Civil Rights movement, were young SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee] workers, freedom riders, people out there in the streets every day getting beaten and sometimes killed, working constantly. They created the circumstances in which a Martin Luther King could come in and be a leader. His role was extremely important, I’m not denigrating it, it was very important to have done that. But the people who were really important are the ones whose names are forgotten. And that’s true of every movement that ever existed.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 307ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
On this day, December 6 in 2006, Australian journo Elizabeth Farrelly points out that, despite those grifters hiding behind the “only 0.x% of emissions” want you to believe, 0.x% is still a big deal.
Elizabeth Farrelly of the Sydney Morning Herald was alive to the same issue when she questioned whether the 0.1 per cent of global emissions which would come from Anvil Hill was ‘in fact so small when even 0.1 per cent of the Stern review’s estimated $9.1 trillion cost of climate change gives $9.1 billion.
(Bonyhady, 2007: 17)
Farrelly, E. 2006. Victories for the Environment Turn Up Heat. Sydney Morning Herald, 6 December.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 382ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The coal mining boom was in full swing. Its defenders needed to find ways to avoid scrutiny.
On this day, December 5 in 2002 the Australian “Prime Ministers Science and Industry Council” released a report called “Beyond Kyoto- Innovation and Adaptation.”
This can be seen as the starting gun for Carbon Capture and Storage in Australia (it had already started moving in the UK).
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 373ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
John Howard had managed to get an absurdly sweet deal for Australia at the Kyoto conference in December 1997. Nonetheless, Australia had delayed ratifying, and on World Environment Day in June 2002 Howard finally did what people had long assumed – he copied George W. Bush in saying “nope.” That meant that he’d have to put forward some other”solutions” to a problem he did not believe (and still does not believe?) is a problem.
It didn’t hurt that the chair of the PMSEIC, his chief scientist, Robin Batterham, was only doing the job part-time, i.e. when he wasn’t working for … Rio Tinto.
Why this matters.
CCS for energy systems is absurd (CCS might have a role to play for industry, if the business models can be made to work).
What happened next?
A really good critique of the PMSEIC report was released shortly afterwards – see here.
Large sums of public money in Australia got wasted on CCS, with really nothing to show for it. But it’s too useful a rhetorical move to ever be finally killed off… And so here we are, twenty years later…
On this day, December 4 in 1989, the first anti-climate action “economics modelling” in Australia came out, and was reported by the business press. Oddly, they neglected to mention that the funding for this “research” came from… a company that was digging up and selling coal. Can only have been space constraints that stopped them mentioning it, oh yes….
Australia will have to suffer the consequences of reduced economic growth to achieve the proposed international goal of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 15 years, according to a group of leading economists.
A paper to be presented to a conference entitled Greenhouse and Energy, which starts at Macquarie University in Sydney today, states that, among other effects, the fight against the greenhouse effect will result in increased electricity bills and reduced increases in real wages.
Lawson, M. 1989. Fighting Greenhouse has an economic cost. Australian Financial Review, 4 December.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
Everyone was talking about emissions cuts and how much (earlier in the year the Thatcher government had shat all over the Toronto Target (see here).
Why this matters.
The “models” do not “reflect” reality. They are just made up bullshit.
John Kenneth Galbraith said it best – “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”
What happened next?
Those who want to stop climate action – because it would cut their profits and/or power, because it offends them, will always find some shonky “modellers” to give them the answers they want. Then equally shonky “journalists” will uncritically run the crap on page 1, and it will get picked up by shonky politicians… and presto, “common sense” is created.
On this day, December 3 in 1972, some climate scientists wrote a “give us money to study climate” letter to President Nixon.
“After the conference the conference organizers, (the late G. J. Kukla and R. K. Mathews) wrote to President Nixon (December 3, 1972) calling for federal action on possible climate change. At that time, with no consensus on climate change, their letter was an important impetus to expanding research. The letter noted that the “main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.” On the question of “artificial heating” of the atmosphere, as opposed to orbital changes for ice ages, the letter concluded that “knowledge necessary for understanding the mechanism of climate change is lamentably inadequate and the ultimate causes remain unknown” (Kukla and Mitchell, 1972) [4]
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 327ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
Everyone knew there’d be new money for this sort of science, and wanted a piece of the action. Not to be cynical or anything.
Why this matters.
Kulka and Mitchell were wrong. We need to remember that there isn’t this “straight narrow line” from ignorance to knowledge. The real world is messy af.
What happened next?
Iirc, they got some dosh, but within a couple of years it became obvious they were wrong
