Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United Kingdom

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

On this day, December 12 in 1977,  the UK government launched an(other) energy efficiency scheme because … they were embarrassed

“It was the visit of US President Jimmy Carter in May 1977 that brought matters to a head. Carter had just launched a major energy saving programme, and the Prime Minister, James Callaghan, did not want to be outdone. ACEC were asked to design a new programme, and with Prime Ministerial support Benn was able to “bang heads together” in Whitehall. On December 12th 1977, he announced a £470m, 4-year programme (worth £2.7bn today), with the aim of saving £700m pa (£4bn) and cutting energy demand by 10 %.” 

(Mallaburn and Eyre, 2014)”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 334ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The UK government had already launched an energy efficiency scheme in 1974 which had achieved … not very much. All through the 70s there were concerns about energy – how much it would cost whether it was running out, whether you’ll be able to get hold of it and in the background for some people a small number at this point concerns about climate change

Why this matters. 

We need to understand that energy efficiency is desperately unsexy and difficult it is much harder to pose with a hard hat and a hi-vis jacket in front of loft insulation than it is in front of new production facilities whether those are nuclear gas offshore wind whatever.

What happened next?

The Labour government was kicked out in 1979 and the new administration of Margaret Thatcher did nothing about energy efficiency and nothing about climate change even though that she herself was briefed on the issue in 1980.

Categories
Australia

December 11, 1975 – German scientist gives stark climate warning in Melbourne

On this day, December 11, 1975, German scientist Hermann Flohn addressed a number of Australian scientists at Monash University, Melbourne, as part of a conference about… climate change.

“Now if we allow man’s interference with climate to increase exponentially as it has done in recent years, we sooner or later come to a state where this 10% rises to 100%, resulting in continuous warming made by man superimposed on these natural fluctuations of cooling and warming. This would be a really dangerous situation in that in the Northern Hemisphere we have this extremely sensitive area of the Arctic sea-ice. The few people who have dealt with models of the sea-ice have the feeling that this is in fact an extremely sensitive system which will reflect very early and very substantially any sizeable warming of the Northern Hemisphere.  The lifetime of individual ice floes is 5 or 10 years, certainly not more than 10 years, and once the ice is removed the present situation would not allow the reforming of permanent ice cover as we have it today. My feeling is that if man’s interference with the climatic system is uncontrolled for some decades, together with uncontrolled growth of energy use, sooner or later during the next century the warming will overwhelm natural factors which usually produce cooling. Then the Arctic sea-ice could disappear rather rapidly, some models say in a period of 10 years or less.”

Herman Flohn, speaking on 11 December 1975

A book was published, edited by the wonderful Barrie Pittock –

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – In 1974 legendary Australian civil servant Nugget Combs had convinced the Whitlam government to ask the Australian Academy of Sciences to investigate the possibility of climate change (this was partly in the context of the CIA report and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger talking about potential food shortages). The AAS researched the matter and on this day in 1975 at Monash University Herman flown eminent German climatologist said the above.

Why this matters. 

We really did know enough to be worried by the mid late 70s and to start acting on the fact that the climate issue did not hit the headlines until 1988 is a travesty but the fact that since 1988 human emissions have gone up by over 60% is beyond a travesty. It is the beginning of a nightmare, or rather the continuation and amplification of a nightmare.

What happened next?

The AAS report was released in early 1976. It sank without trace because it did not say “yes there most definitely is a problem” (to have done so would have been ahead of the evidence). And in any case, Australia was in political turmoil because the elected government of Gough Whitlam had been removed by John Kerr the governor-general (If this had happened in another country we would have talked about it being a CIA coup there have been more dead bodies but I digress).

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

December 11, 1895 – Arrhenius reads his “Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air” paper to Swedish Academy of Science…

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. 

It was published the following year

You can read it here – https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

For discussion, see

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…

Categories
United States of America

December 10, 1985 – Carl Sagan testified to US Senators on #climate danger

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.”

Handy transcript here – https://theanalysis.news/carl-sagan-testifying-before-congress-in-1985-on-climate-change/

“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…

https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/10/14/october-15-1985-villach-meeting-supercharges-greenhouse-concerns/)
They crunched numbers, thought about the non-C02 gases and gone “ooops” and started getting sympathetic politicians (and at this point, the Republicans had not yet gone totally insane).

.

Why this matters. 

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.

Categories
Canada Science Scientists

December 10, 1978 – Academic workshop on “Climate/Society Interface” begins in Toronto…

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.]

Categories
United Kingdom

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

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)”

Mallaburn and Eyre, 2014

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…

Categories
United Kingdom

December 8, 1981 – Thames TV shows “Warming Warning” documentary

On this day, December 8 in 1981, 

As the excellent Carbon Brief has it – 

“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. “

Read more here   https://www.carbonbrief.org/warming-warning-1981-tv-documentary-warned-climate-change

Here’s a good clip

[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.

Categories
Kyoto Protocol United States of America

December 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

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.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Chomsky/chomsky-con5.html

[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.] 

Why this matters. 

Noam has mattered. Movements matter.

Categories
Australia

December 6, 2006-  Turns out 0.1% of a Very BIG NUMBER is … quite a lot…

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.


Also, vale Pete Gray.

Why this matters. 

It’s a basic point – don’t let people bullshit you with percentages, when it is the absolute numbers wot matter.

What happened next?

The coal mine got built. Of  course it did.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

December 5, 2002 – Australian Government CCS support begins…

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…