Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United Kingdom

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1979, a Cabinet Office wonk hopes that a vague research effort

“would provide an answer to the environmental and ecological lobby by showing that the Government was taking seriously the possibility of irreversible long-term changes in the climate, particularly those which might conceivably be brought about by man’s intervention,’’ as an internal letter explained;”

letter from N.B.W. Thompson to Mr. Mountfield, 7 Aug 1979, KEW, Ref. I.02375, CAB 184/56

Agar, 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was now an Ecology party. And there were groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Conservation Society. Other outfits campaigning about clean air and not building more airports and so forth. Green Alliance had started. There was an identifiable environment lobby, and the senior civil servants were thinking about how it could be placated perhaps with the release of this interdepartmental report on climatic change, which had been completed in early 1979. 

What we learn is that civil servants think about the politics of it all and how to please their so-called masters. And that by the late 70s, environment was an issue. 

What happened next, the “Climatic Change” report, was released in February 1980. received a small amount of desultory press because it was a desultory document by and large, partly because it just wasn’t taking on board what the Americans were saying. (I think you can pin it on the Met Office’s John Mason if you like.)

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 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Japan

August 6, 1945 – Hiroshima

Seventy nine years ago, on this day, August 6th, 1945,

Hiroshima. Roughly 100,000 Japanese people killed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Americans were wondering about what to do about Japan. Number one, physical invasion (“Operation Olympic”) was going to be “mildly costly” let’s say, in terms of casualties. And number two, Stalin said he was coming into the Pacific War, three months after Germany’s surrender, and that three months was almost up. So if you can do something, do it quick. And crucially, Truman was well up for it. Attlee, who was UK Prime Minister by this time, was too – he later said that no one told him about the radioactive implications. They just told him it was a bigger bomb. 

What we should learn is, I suppose you can make a “moral” case for using an atomic bomb to kill 100,000 human beings, civilians. in Hiroshima, which was not a military target. I mean, how they’d already firestormed Tokyo. If you want to make that “moral” argument, go ahead and fill your boots. I think the one that you really can’t do that for is Nagasaki two days later.

 Fun fact – Kyoto was on a short list of four places to get nuked.

What happened next? Well, first we got the bomb. And that was good because we love peace and motherhood. Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s okay, because the balance of powers maintained that way. 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 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats #auspol #climate

Categories
South Paciific

August 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens

Fifty three years ago, on this day, August 5th,1971, leaders of small island states get together…

 The first Pacific Islands Forum (then known as the “South Pacific Forum”) is held in Wellington, New Zealand, with the aim of enhancing cooperation between the independent countries of the Pacific Ocean.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Vietnam War was still going on (the Americans were losing.) There were pacts of different nations, SEATO to ASEAN, all the rest of it. Eisenhower’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had been doing “pactomania.” BUT not everything should be seen as the machinations of the metropole. Sometimes – gasp – the “colonials” have plans of their own…

The ‘no politics’ restriction on discussion in the [south Pacific Conference] was the source of great dissatisfaction for the nascent leadership from the islands. The most pressing issues for the islands were clearly political ones involving larger questions of decolonization, but the greatest concern was nuclear testing by France.7
Matters came to a head at the 1965 meeting in Lae, Papua New Guinea, when Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara of Fiji led a major push from the island representatives to give the Conference more relevance in the actions of the SPC beyond its existing ‘advisory’ capacity. The ‘Lae Rebellion’ was ‘the first concerted effort by Pacific Islanders to protest against the structures in the SPC which ensured dominance by the colonial powers’.8
Mara was also the driving force behind the creation in 1965 of the first indigenously motivated ‘islands-only’ regional organization, the Pacific Islands Producers Association (PIPA). Formed by Fiji, Tonga, and Western Samoa outside of the domain of the SPC, PIPA provided a unified front for negotiating the prices of common agricultural products for export.
Faced with increasing irrelevance, the SPC did evolve in an attempt to meet these new challenges and demands from the island states. From 1967 onward, meetings of the Conference and Commission were held together, and the difference between the two bodies essentially disappeared by 1974.9
Despite these reforms, it was clear the SPC’s charter made the organization too limited to deal with all of the issues confronting the region, and the South Pacific Forum was founded in 1971 as an attempt to address these rising challenges.

THE PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM by ERIC SHIBUYA

What we learn is that if you don’t know something these days, you can just Google it. Pretty much go to Google Scholar. Truth – or at least the facts – will out. 

What happened next? Well, by 1987, the Commonwealth was getting interested in global warming, there was the 1987 meeting at which Margaret Thatcher got schooled. And of course, in 1988, it burst on the public agenda. And then there was the Male Declaration in 1989. And since then, AOSIS, and since then the Pacific island nations have been begging and pleading with Australia to be less of a douche. And Australia’s been like, “yeah, nah” on it. We do have the fun of Albo’s 2006 Labor Party position paper on “Our Drowning Neighbours.” And then in 2023 there’s a deal where people from Tuvalu can swap their snorkels for visas.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Categories
Agriculture Australia

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 4th, 2004,

THE greatest risk facing farmers is climate change and global warming, National Farmers Federation president Peter Corish has warned.

Calling for a national blueprint on the long-term problems facing the bush, Mr Corish said the NFF had changed its position in the past 12 months and was now convinced of the threat of global warming.

“Twelve or 18 months ago, we would have said very strongly the jury is still out on climate change because we believed there had been a lack of research into assessment of how real climate change is and how far it is likely to go,” he told the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday.

Karvelas, P. 2004. Farmers chief warns on climate. The Australian, 5 August, p.5.

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 there was a drought going on. Australian farmers are always worrying about the weather, because the weather in the land is quite marginal a lot of the time. And of course, at this point, climate change had been an issue of public debate for 15 years. The broader context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard was doing everything in his power to avoid taking any substantive action on climate change, either domestically or internationally. And he was banging on about coal. The other context is that the National Farmers Association or whatever it’s called, had basically been captured and silenced. And you can read about it in Guy Pearse’s wonderful PhD thesis that was published two years later 2006 where he talks about the different sectoral trade associations, whether it’s agriculture, insurance, banking, tourism, whatever, as the missing inactions. 

What happened next. The Millennium Drought broke in 2008/9. The farmers are still screwed by climate change because one-off events are temporary anomalies, like droughts, pulse disturbances in the system. The thing you really have to watch for are the press disturbances, like the CO2 build-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 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers

Categories
Arctic

August 3,1958 – under the pole goes the Nautilus

Sixty six years ago, on this day, August 3rd, 1958, we boldly go…

On August 3, 1958, the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) made history by becoming the first ship to pass underneath the North Pole. The 1,830-mile journey was launched from Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on July 23, 1958, under the name “Operation Sunshine” and brought the sub and her crew to the shores of England in 19 days.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the bloody Ruskies had put a little ironmonger’s ball in orbit. And so therefore, the Americans needed to boldly go somewhere. In this case, it was under the North Pole in the Nautilus commanded by Captain Nemo or someone. 

What we learn is that phallic objects get everywhere if they give you a sense of power. 

What happened next. Residues of nuclear weapons are all around us. Operation Sunshine, etc. And the polar ice cap is… melting and melting and melting. 

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 3, 1970 – Nixon warned about climate change and icecaps melting

August 3, 1988 – Exxon tries to downplay “the greenhouse effect.” Again.

Categories
Denial

August 2, 1992 – Canberra Times reporting that Jastrow idiot #RelevanceDeprivationSyndrome

Thirty two years ago, on this day, August 2nd, 1992, the newspaper for Australia’s political capital reports a very stupid physicist who couldn’t cope with having backed the wrong horse and being old and now irrelevant (scientifically, if, not – sadly – politically).

“Global warming caused by sun” Canberra Times 2 August, p.5, reporting Jastrow

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 although the denialists had one relatively famous victory at Rio, it wasn’t enough. It was never enough, because they wanted to drive a stake through what they perceive to be the vampire’s heart. And, of course, they quite liked travelling around the world, feeling important because they were addressing various audiences and getting polite applause. These are old white men suffering from Relevant Deprivation Syndrome. Their days as high powered physicists were well behind them. They had fought the Cold War, they had defended Reagan’s Space Defence Initiative, (aka Star Wars), and now they had found a new grift, saying that the greenhouse effect wasn’t real.

What we learn is that Relevance Deprivation Syndrome is a tragic chronic illness, with fatal consequences for everyone else. Robert Jastrow, in the late 70s, after all, had been saying there would be a new ice age. It’s fine to be wrong. It’s not so fine to compensate by being a total prick. 

What happened next, the Canberra Times kept publishing denialist screeds because journalistic “balance” as per Boykoff and Boykoff (2004). Funny how they didn’t balance pro-capitalist views with anti-capitalist and communist views, for example.

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 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

August 2, 1994 – Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating says greenies should ignore “amorphous issue of greenhouse”

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.

Categories
Japan

August 2, 1991- Pledge and Review…

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 2nd, 1991,

The Japanese float the idea of a “Pledge and Review” solution to the climate policy blockage.

Grubb, M and Steen, Nicola (1991) Pledge and Review Processes: Possible Components of a Climate Convention, Report of a Workshop held 2 August 1991, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the negotiations towards the text of a Treaty that could be signed at the June 1992 Rio Earth Summit were basically stalled (thanks primarily, but not entirely, to US intransigence). And so all sorts of log-jam breaking schemes were being proposed.

What we learn is that where we are now, we’ve been before (especially with this – see below).

What happened next. Pledge and Review was dismissed as something that simply would not deliver the required ambition, something that would allow bullshitting and loopholes. Then it was dusted off, twenty plus years later, and became the basis for the “Paris Agreement.” And it turns out it allows bullshitting and loopholes. Who knew?

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 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

August 2, 1994 – Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating says greenies should ignore “amorphous issue of greenhouse”

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.

Categories
Australia

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake

Eight years ago, on this day, August 1st, 2016,

New minister Josh Frydenberg backs transition to renewables, despite campaign blaming them for price spikes

Slezak, M. 2016. How the campaign against South Australian wind farms backfired. Guardian Australia, 1 August.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that South Australia had been edging ahead in the amount of renewable energy in its electricity system because Premier Mike Rann had found a way whereby he made it extremely easy for already profitable (thanks to federal schemes) wind farms to get planning approval in the north of the state.

And this success was making the culture warriors agitated (though to be fair, Australian culture warriors are always finding something to be agitated about). But sometimes their agitation gets a bit much and they start scoring own goals; and so it came to pass.

What we learned is that culture warriors going to warrior.

What happened next is that the South Australian energy transition continued at pace. There was Elon Musk’s big battery and all the rest of it. It’s still unfolding, and you can read about it at places like reneweconomy.

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 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

Categories
Activism Australia

July 31, 2014 Ark hits rocks with forestry tie-in

Ten years ago, on this day, July 31st, 2014, an Australian eco-group got its reputation burned.

2014 Planet Ark on the receiving end of criticism about its tie-in with forestry outfit –

The founders of environment group Planet Ark are speaking out about the charity they say has lost its way.

Environmentalist Jon Dee and tennis great Pat Cash founded Planet Ark 20 years ago.

It soon forged a high profile, thanks in part to the backing of celebrities like Olivia Newton John, Kylie Minogue and Pierce Brosnan.

But times have been tough for Planet Ark lately.

It has made substantial losses for three years running, sold some major assets and offered redundancies to staff.

After National Tree Day at the weekend, Mr Dee and Mr Cash have told 7.30 they are particularly upset about Planet Ark’s links with the timber industry.

Planet Ark has allowed its logo to be used on advertisements for timber, paid for by Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA).

It is part of a sponsorship deal in which Planet Ark gets $700,000 from the timber industry [continues]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-31/planet-ark-founders-cut-ties-with-lost-organisation/4167146

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian outfit Planet Ark had been going since 1992 (and set up its website in 1996). And they, like any NGO, needed money, and the people with the money said they didn’t want anything in return, but there’s always strings attached. 

What we learn. It suits the needs of organisations with environmental reputations that need a bit of polishing to partner with outfits that have some sort of credibility And so it comes to pass. This tension plays out again and again. Because it’s a market for reputation. There are buyers and sellers. 

What happened next? Planet Ark is still around.

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: 

July 31, 1981 – US politicians hold “carbon dioxide and climate” hearings.

July 31, 2008 – another day, another “Strategic Review”

Categories
Energy United States of America

July 30, 1979 – synfuels would be sinful…

Forty five years ago, on this day, July 30th, 1979, politicians learn that making synfuels would be a Very Bad Idea.

Panel Warned of Synthetic Fuel Danger By Katherine Ellison, July 31, 1979

A group of scientists, warning of potential ecological imbalances and climatic changes, yesterday urged the government to slow its pursuit of a large-scale synthetic fuels program.

The scientists said the ecological changes could result from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — one assured by product of a switch to synfuel production.

They described the so-called “greenhouse effect” whereby heat is trapped close to the earth by increased levels of carbon dioxide, and predicted some long-term effects might be erratic world food production, severe droughts in some regions and costal flooding in others.

link

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various US administrations had been quite interested in replacing Middle Eastern oil and making money at the same time. But of course, that came with fairly heavy environmental consequences, which climate scientists were at pains to point out.

What we learn is that national security and energy security can compete with other demands. Real energy trilemma at play. And that’s been going on a long time. 

What happened next – the synfuels thing went away, in part because oil prices plummeted. The emissions kept going up though…

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: 

July 30, 1968 – the UN says yes to an environment conference

July 30, 1979 – scientists warn US Senators about synfuels and carbon dioxide build-up

July 30, 1989 – UK Conservative politician warns “we have at most 25 years to take action.”