Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

August 25, 1933 – South Coast Bulletin reports “Carbon dioxide: climatic influence”

Ninety one years ago, on this day, August 25th, 1933, carbon dioxide’s influence on climate gets a mention in an Australian publication, the South Coast Bulletin.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 309ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context being that Svante Arrhenius’s proposal of Anthropogenic Global Warming had been poo pooed thanks to people like Angstrom and his mis-understanding of how carbon dioxide behaves in the stratosphere. There were still people out there interested in Arrhenius’s proposals around the weather, industrialization, etc. There was Lotka. And I think Weber, for example, said something about significantly vaporising coal mines. And this stuff was “in the air” at the time – see New York Times article the year before…

In 1912 Popular Mechanics had run an article which led to syndicated snippets in papers around the world, which occasionally get tweeted at this site as some sort of ‘gotcha’, I think.

Anyway, here we were in 1933. And in the middle of the Great Depression, people probably had a lot else on their mind.

 What we learn is that ideas like carbon dioxide impacting climate, were quiet in the 20s and 30s, but they were still there.

What happened next? The next big CO2 event was Guy Callendar in 1938 at the Royal Meteorological Society in London.

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: 

August 25, 1970 – Margaret Mead and James Baldwin rap on race…

August 25, 2013 – The IPA loses support, for being stupid climate deniers.

Categories
Australia

August 24, 1992 – Bureaucrats kill greenie-business consensus on climate action

Thirty two years ago, on this day, August 24th, 1992, the last chance to do something differently is killed off.

The Canberra Times has a front page story that begins thus:

Federal and state bureaucrats have watered down and fatally weakened recommendations agreed to by industry, conservationists and scientists to lessen the greenhouse effect, according to the Institution of Engineers, Australia.

The IEA’s claims are similar to those made by Australia’s green groups, who have pulled out of the final stages of the Ecologically Sustainable Development process in protest at what they see as undermining by the Federal Government.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/137175203

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the greenies (small g because the Green Party didn’t exist,) had forced then Prime Minister Bob Hawke to launch an Ecologically Sustainable Development policy-making process in 1990. This had come up with some good ideas, which were then watered down. And the whole thing was then being vigorously killed off by 1992. Not so much by Paul Keating, but by federal bureaucracy henchmen, who were determined that Australia’s future was about digging up more and selling it, chopping down more and selling it. And then for them, development meant growth, industrial growth, GDP growth at any cost, and they didn’t see why they should have to pretend to listen to a bunch of Luddite hippies. Now that the media was bored of listening to the “Luddite hippies”, and there was this ridiculous summit had been agreed. 

What we learn is that when we only pay attention to politicians, and business, we miss an important aspect of the resistance to sanity. Namely, the permanent bureaucracy that thinks it runs the show and often does run the show. But activists are very loathe to talk about this – some activists anyway – perhaps because it seems like a conspiracy theory. And also you’re beating up on people who can’t talk back to you but can sabotage you. Assholes, in other words. 

What happened next: A carbon tax, which would have been one small part of an overall intelligent response, was defeated in 1995. The emissions kept climbing. And the consequences are beginning to pile up…

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: 

August 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

August 24, 1994 – first signs of a split in the anti-climate action business coalition…

Categories
Geoeingeering

August 23, 1989 – Space Mirrors proposed to combat global warming. I am not making this up.

Thirty five years ago, on this day, August 23rd, 1989,

WASHINGTON — Gigantic orbiting mirrors may offer a solution – albeit a very costly one — to Earth’s anticipated woes with global warming if pollution control efforts fail, a Swiss scientist said Wednesday.

In a letter published in the British journal Nature, Walter Seifritz said he thinks it is unlikely humans will do much in the near future to reduce pollution that threatens to boost the planet’s temperature.

Carbon dioxide and other gases generated by fuel consumption and burning of tropical forests warm Earth’s atmosphere by trapping solar heat like a greenhouse.

Many scientists predict if current pollution trends continue, Earth’s temperature could rise 4 to 9 degrees over the next 70 years. Such an increase would cause a marked rise in sea levels and dramatic climate changes.

If efforts to cut emission of so-called greenhouse gases fail and serious global warming occurs, Seifritz contends ‘a remote but feasible possiblity’ would be to lower temperatures by artificially blocking the amount of sunlight reaching Earth.

‘To compensate for a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Kelvin (4.5 degrees Farenheit), the solar radiation must be reduced by about 3.5 percent. The task could be done by satellites bearing large, lightweight mirrors,’ wrote the professor from Switzerland’s Schurrer Institute.

Kolberg, R. 1989. Mammoth mirrors could offset global warming. UPI, 23 August.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone had been banging on about climate change for a year. And now, the techno-fetishists were getting in on the act, with the idea of space mirrors as part of the whole solar radiation management gimmick. 

What we learn is that rather than look inside and examine our actual problems, we are far keener on looking outside and listening to people who point to “this thing of darkness we acknowledge is someone else’s” (That’s a riff on Prospero in The Tempest, btw). And technofixes are a really good example of that. Press bro would not be surprised. 

What happened next, we still don’t have any space mirrors. We didn’t do anything to reduce the trajectory of emissions. And we are beginning to boil, metaphorically speaking.

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: 

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

Categories
Academia Canada

August 22, 1987 – “Civilisation and Rapid Climate Change” – a short book…

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, August 22nd, 1987, a conference took place in Canada, with the snappy title

Civilization and Rapid Climate Change, University of Calgary 22 – 24 August 1987. A short book “Thinking the Unthinkable” by Lydia Dotto emerged…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Canadians had been aware of CO2 build-up for a good 15 years, like everyone else (actually, it goes back to the 1950s, but only spottily). By the early 1970s, it was becoming more of a ‘thing’. By this time, probably the June 1988 Changing Atmosphere conference had been announced.

The person who acted as the rapporteur was Lydia Dotto, who had written a book about ozone. And, you know, the anthropologists and so forth were quite right when they said “don’t expect us to meet the challenge. That’s not who we are.” And so it came to pass…

What we learn is that before Thatcher and Bush, there were plenty of people saying, “watch out.” Not just climate scientists by the mid late 80s. It also had been that Canadian documentary and so forth. And they were keeping an eye on what was happening in the US. Carl Sagan Philip called the rest of it.

What happened next: Thatcher Bush and a generation of bullshit

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

Dotto, L. 1987.

Also on this day: 

August 22, 1988 – scientists say “Australia, expect #climate refugees”

August 22, 1981 – New York Times front page story costs #climate scientists their jobs.

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

August 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 21st, 2004, a newspaper tells the tale… (I know this because the ALP’s Anthony Albanese was using the article to attack Prime Minister John Howard in March 2005.)

Albanese speech in parliament 9 March 2005

“Even Treasurer Peter Costello and the former environment minister, David Kemp, supported a national trading scheme. As reported by the Australian on 21 August 2004:

Federal cabinet rejected such a scheme— an emissions trading scheme in 2003— … even though Environment Minister David Kemp and Treasurer Peter Costello promoted it, after industry lobbied John Howard

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had polished off the emissions trading scheme for the second time, even though his Cabinet had been united against him. He’d hit a pause button, gone and talked to his business mates, came back and said “nah.”

And here we were a year later. I think in the run up to the 2004. Federal election (which happened in October. Mark Latham. Remember him?). A good old fashioned scoop that the Australian ran, presumably because they knew that if they didn’t, it would get given to someone else. It also made them look like journalists, which is always difficult when you’re The Australian. [Interesting question would be who leaked it and why? I don’t know that they ever necessarily got to the bottom of that. But it would be fun to find out.]

What we learn is that when somebody would leak something, you’d have to ask, what were they trying to achieve? What’s the timing? And have they protected themselves enough? Sarah Tisdall and all that.

What happened next, Howard won the 2004 election. Latham went way off the deep end. And Howard got another three years of being a complete fuck knuckle on climate.

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: 

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference.

August 21, 1972 – Nature editor John Maddox says C02-temperature fear “found wanting”

Categories
United States of America

August 20, 2016 – Exxon’s gonna get sued?

Eight years ago, on this day, August 20th, 2017

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says in an interview with the New York Times that his office’s investigation into Exxon is focused less on what the company knew about climate change years ago, and more on whether the company in recent years failed to report the potential impact of climate change regulations on its future business. In other words, the AG’s office is conducting “a straightforward fraud investigation.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/science/exxon-mobil-fraud-inquiry-said-to-focus-more-on-future-than-past.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Americans love suing people. And there were various attempts to sue Exxon. These were initially based on how long they’ve known about climate change, but as the Attorney General makes clear, just getting them on today’s fraud is probably your best bet.

What we learn is that “this isn’t a Court of Justice son, this is a court of law”. The people who made the decisions to stop Exxon, working on low carbon, and the people who funded and led all the denial and delay and obfuscation do indeed deserve to be at The Hague and then sentenced to a low lying prison. But that’s not going to happen. Because the laws are not always written for the rich, they are always enforced for the rich.

What happened next, I think the court cases dragging on and on, of course.

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: 

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Categories
Scientists

August 20, 1988 – Hansen’s model released

Thirty six years ago, on this day, August 20th, 1988,

The most comprehensive greenhouse model to date was prepared by Hansen at the Goddard Institute and published in the August 20, 1988, issue of Journal of Geophysical Research. Hansen’s model predicts an increase of from two to five degrees Fahrenheit in the next thirty years, depending on which of three alternate futures the world’s nations choose: continued expansion of fossil fuel use at the current annual rate of 1.5 percent; a moderate cut-back; or a radical shift away from fossil fuels to alternate sources of energy, such as solar, nuclear, wind, or hydroelectric. https://www.spin.com/2019/09/greenhouse-effect-climate-crisis/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was banging on about climate. Now greenhouse, which was not the case when this model had been worked on two months earlier. US climate scientist James Hansen had given his bombshell testimony. This was the first published version of the climate models that he was talking about. 

What we learn is that Hansen has been ahead of the game for a long time and  probably should not be ignored. 

What happened next, Hansen got attacked, the models got attacked. The Global Climate Coalition came along, the George C Marshall Institute pivoted from shilling Reagan’s Star Wars to this crap. And here we are.

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: 

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Categories
South Paciific

August 19, 2002 – Pacific Islands make unreasonable demands about continuing to live

Twenty two years ago, on this day, August 19th, 2002,

Pacific Islands: Climate Change, Radiation Concern Leaders

Government leaders of 16 Pacific Island nations expressed “deep concerns” about the adverse impacts of climate change, climate variability and sea level rise as the 33rd Pacific Islands Forum closed in Suva on Saturday. Many of these small and low lying island nations are already experiencing extreme hardship.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George W. Bush (aka Dick Cheney’s glove puppet) had pulled out of Kyoto Protocol negotiations the previous year, Australian Prime Minister John Howard had pulled out of Kyoto two months earlier. There was loose talk about technology, which didn’t really convince the South Pacific Island folks, who knew that they were screwed. And they still know that they’re screwed. 

What we learn is that we just white people just don’t care. Because it’s not going to happen to them, (they think) so screw everyone else. 

What happened next, Howard kept bullshitting. In 2006, the ALP used Pacific islands as a prop with their “Our Drowning Neighbours” report. That’s probably a bit unfair to the sincere people who pushed it on the agenda. But there you are – life is full of unfair…

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: 

August 19, 1968 – Is Man Spoiling the Weather? (yes)

August 19 1997 – “The denialists take Canberra” with “Countdown to Kyoto” conference

Categories
Australia Business Responses Energy

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 18th, 1991 the rich people told future generations (especially of poor people) to go fuck themselves.

The Business Council of Australia yesterday rejected proposals to make industry more energy-efficient.

The council criticised recommendations by the Federal Government’s taskforce on ecologically sustainable development to increase energy prices and impose new taxes, such as a tax on fuel with high carbon levels.

The council said the country’s future lay in continuing to develop its natural resources. Its executive director, Mr Peter McLaughlin, said the sustainable development process could significantly damage industry unless it adopted a “much more realistic tone”.

Peake, R. 1991. Business Rejects Lower Energy Use. The Age, 19 August, p.14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Business Council of Australia, the main club for big business, was shouting no at everything, a bit like Ian Paisley did. And even stuff that made absolute sense on any level of economic thinking was shouted down. I think there are two things going on there, around fear of a slippery slope, and also that regulation might be shown – gasp – to be beneficial.

What we learn; two things. First, in the midst of a culture war, the red mist or the green mist descends. And the other thing we need to remember is that all of the economic modelling that outfits like the BCA were relying on and commissioning, assumed perfect efficiency already. And no matter how many empirical examples were given to them, by Alan Pears and other energy efficiency advocates, if it didn’t fit the theory, it was discarded. It was ignored. And so if you believe that things are already perfectly energy efficient, agreeing to further energy efficiency measures is actually merely agreeing to wasteful government regulation in and of itself, which will then encourage more bureaucrats to breed in dark corners. 

What happened next, the BCA won, and the Australian housing industry is still miserably inefficient, of course. But the economic models that say it’s impossible for business to be inefficient, persist and have their death grip on the minds – if you can call them “minds” – of business elites. 

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: 

August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

Categories
Australia

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1997,

The Australian energy, mining and paper industries have united to call on the Government to appoint a Cabinet-ranked sustainable development minister to combat “piecemeal management” and to take a national approach to greenhouse gas abatement.

Yesterday, industry peak bodies issued a joint statement saying the lack of coherent management was “one of the greatest threats to a robust, coherent and consistent industry policy and certainly to resources and energy policy”.

1997 Taylor, L. (1997) Industry wants minister for `greenhouse’ The Australian Financial Review 18th August

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that it was clear some sort of “Greenhouse Office” or greenhouse minister was going to be required, if only to keep the Libs quiet. And so this call from industries like Paper happening as it was, at the same time as the Countdown to Kyoto conference is a classic spoiler move, demand a ministerial post is created: that helps give small L-libs that something is being done (see also Macmillan Manoeuvre). And then you make damn sure that your guy is in charge. And if your guy isn’t in charge, you have fallback plans about withholding information, not inviting them to meetings, all the rest of it. And this is one of those good tactics that the dickheads have at their disposal. 

What we learn is that in isolation, a bold statement of fact can seem confusing, but once you put the pieces together of the puzzle, you see what else was happening. You see what else their motivations might have been. Then it becomes a little bit clearer. 

What happened next, there was no greenhouse minister that there was the Australian Greenhouse Office with pitiful funding that Howard appointed and then ignored. It was a total waste of money as the Australian National Audit Office pointed out in 2004.

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: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol