Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

November 19, 1998 – John Howard trolls Australia by appointing Mr Coal as Environment Ambassador

Twenty six years ago, on this day, November 19th, 1998, the Democrats were unhappy that coal baron Ralph Hillman is now environment ambassador.

CANBERRA, Nov 19, AAP – The Australian Democrats today damned the appointment of economist and trade expert Ralph Hillman as Australia’s new ambassador for the environment.

Democrats environment spokeswoman Lyn Alison said the announcement that Mr Hillman would replace Meg McDonald as ambassador this month was a cynical decision.

“Mr Hillman has no obvious qualifications to be an advocate for the environment, he is more likely to work against the interests of the environmental movement,” Senator Alison said in a statement.

“The key credential Mr Hillman brings to the position is his hard-headed economic rationalism and experience in foreign affairs. This makes him just the ticket for a government that doesn’t take the environment seriously.”

But the Australian Conservation Foundation said it would work with Mr Hillman.

“We believe it is a very important job,” ACF campaigns director Michael Krockenberger told AAP.

“It is especially so as Australia faces a lot of international pressure on the environment on issues like climate change and looking after world heritage areas threatened by issues such as uranium mining in Kakadu National Park and oil shale mining at the Great Barrier Reef,” he said.

Anon, 1998. FED – Democrats damn appointment of environment ambassador. Australian Associated Press, November 19

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard could afford to relax a bit, having won a famous victory at Kyoto, carving out a tremendously generous deal. And now he could display his sense of humour. The post of ambassador for the environment was created under Bob Hawke in 1989 {link]. And Howard was now appointing the head of the Australian Coal Association as the ambassador for the environment. Oh how he must have chuckled. 

What we learn is that John Howard had a sense of humour when he was “owning the libs.” Any post can be emptied of its meaning, when a new government comes along and can’t be bothered spending political capital abolishing it, just render it utterly meaningless by appointing someone who is clearly not going to do the job the way it was meant.

What happened next. And so it came to pass. 

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: 

November 19, 1943 – FIDO used for the first time

November 19, 1958 – doctor warns of long-term problem of carbon dioxide build-up

November 19, 1960 – Guy Callendar gives advice on unpopularity of C02 theory

November 19, 1990 – “The US should agree to stabilising CO2 levels”

November 19, 2007 – Gordon Brown announces first Carbon Capture and Storage competition at WWF event

Categories
United Kingdom

November 18, 1979 – leaked Cabinet Papers reveal effort to “reduce oversensitivity to environmental consideration”

Forty five years ago, on this day, November 18th 1979,

leaked Cabinet papers record the Government’s efforts to ‘reduce oversensitivity to environmental consideration'(The Sunday Times, 18 November 1979).

This was the effort of John Hoskyns….

Norton-Taylor, R. 1979. Topping up the Think Tank. The Guardian, Nov 24, p.19.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Thatcher had come to power in May 1979. And there were a bunch of even more extreme right-wingers trying to pull her in that direction, not just Keith Joseph. And there was this guy who had come up with a big fat book, like Dominic Cummings of his time, only successful. And one of his enemies had leaked something to the Sunday Times.

What we learn is that there are always intra government, intra department battles going on about the direction and speed of travel and so forth. And one of the time-honoured ways of fighting those battles, is leaking embarrassing information about your enemies to the press. They will happily splash that because it sells newspapers and makes them look like they’re investigators. (See also EP Thompson and the culture of leaks and non-attributed briefings.) 

What happened next, the guy, John Hoskyns, wasn’t in post for terribly much longer, and it really looked like Thatcher wouldn’t be. But then the Argentinian junta delivered her an election on a plate. She took it and she never looked back. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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: 

November 18, 1953 – Macmillan tells the truth about committees

November 18, 1989 – Small Island States say “er, we gotta do something before the waves close over our heads”

November 18, 1998 – coal guy becomes Australian environment ambassador

Categories
Egypt

November 17, 1869 – Suez Canal opens

One hundred and fifty-five years ago years ago, on this day, November 17th, 1869, the Suez Canal opens.

The water of the two seas met on August 18th, 1869, and the Suez Canal was born; “the artery of prosperity for Egypt and the world”. That Canal was described by the late renowned geographer, Dr. Gamal Hemdan, as “the pulse of Egypt”. Six thousand guests attended the Canal’s legendary inauguration ceremony on November 17th, 1869; most importantly Empress Eugenie of France – wife of Emperor Napoleon the Third – as well as the Emperor of Austria, the King of Hungary, the Crown Prince of Prussia, the brother of the King of the Netherlands, the British Ambassador in Istanbul, Emir Abdelkader El-Djazairi, Prince Tawfiq – Crown Prince of Egypt -, the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, Prince Toson – son of the late Said Pasha -, Nubar Pasha, and many others. A procession of ships entered the canal that day (November 17th, 1869), headed by the L’Aigle; carrying the most important figures attending the inauguration ceremony on board, and followed by 77 ships; 50 of which were warships. The inauguration extravaganza cost Khedive Ismail approximately one and a half million Egyptian Pounds.

[source]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 288ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was British imperialism, and the desire to be able to get to places they wanted to get to, without having to schlep all the way around. Cape of Good Hope, which has a long way and occasionally dangerous. And also, of course, to be able to get things from those places. This was before railways had made it that far. 

What I think we can learn from this is that money makes the world go round and go round.

What happened next? So much! The British invasion of Egypt in 1883. The Suez crisis of 1956. And on and on…

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

Fred Jameson’s stuff in “Postmodernism” about this…

Also on this day: 

November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
Renewable energy Wind Energy

November 17, 1978 – British Wind Energy Association launches

Forty-five years ago, on this day, November 17th, 1978,

Formed from the ITDG Wind Panel along with other interested parties and representatives from industry, to promote wind power in the United Kingdom. The inaugural meeting of the BWEA took place on 17 November 1978 at the Rutherford Laboratory with Peter Musgrove of Reading University as chairman.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that wind power was seen as a possibility, albeit at a small cranky one that might only be of use in places which were far distant from the grid. And it had started, as these things often do, in university research engineering departments. But eventually these universities can no longer do all the things needed – there’s competing commercial interests. And then a sensible thing to do, not just lobbying purposes, but also to keep the politics and commercial battles kind of at arm’s length, is to set up a kind of trade association. They’re not pure play trade associations, of course, they’re just an interest group for all the different people interested in the topic. Trade Associations tend to come later. 

What we learn is that wind has a long, long history in the UK. 

What happened next, it would take a long time for offshore wind to kick in, that wouldn’t happen until  2010. So that was mostly as a result of the extreme hostility to onshore wind by some local authorities and also by the Tory party in central government. 

What happened next? The British took over, invaded Egypt in 1883. After squabbles over the money I’m not going to talk to you about Suez ‘56.

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 and See Also

Feb 2024 article about the challenges facing wind power

https://www.ft.com/content/7f742d23-673b-47d3-9ce9-64fa5d322abe

Also on this day: 

November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
Australia

November 17, 1994 – “When consumption is no longer sustainable”…

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 17th, 1994,

“The fly in the ointment is the increasing insistence of our scientists that it can’t go on much longer. Just the latest unwelcome reminder of this came last week at a seminar on “Consumption and the Environment”, organised by the Australian National University’s Centre for Continuing Education on behalf of the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories.”

Gittins, R. 1994. When more is no longer sustainable. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 November, p.21.

[ALMOST CERTAINLY 17 November, in Sydney….

http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/market/green/probarticle1.html

https://www.vgls.vic.gov.au/client/en_AU/vgls/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS$002f0$002fSD_ILS:63151/ada?qu=Consumption+%28Economics%29&d=ent%3A%2F%2FSD_ILS%2F0%2FSD_ILS%3A63151%7EILS%7E2&ps=300&h=8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by now we’ve had all of this nonsense about green consumerism and the “Green Consumer Guide” and all the rest of it. But populations are growing, wants and “needs” are growing. Advertising was continuing at a very great pace. And therefore, obviously comes the question of when does consumption en masse start to be unsustainable? And if you’ve heard of a guy called William Jevons, you will know that efficiency is not the be all and end all. And so it’s unsurprising, albeit depressing, that people were having these conversations all those years ago.

For the avoidance of doubt: the best consumption for most of us is less consumption. Obviously, when I say most of us, I mean most of us wealthy people in Europe. There are other places in the world where they desperately need to consume more, more health care, more protein, and more contraceptives, etc. That won’t happen. We are going to be the bacteria that eats everything in the petri dish. But that metaphor hides culpability. 

What we learn: We knew. We did not act. We are doomed.

What happened next? We kept hyper-consuming. 

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: 

November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
United Kingdom

November 17, 1968 -The Observer covers carbon dioxide pollution…

Fifty-five years ago, on this day, November 17th, 1968 Observer article by John Davy contains significant mention of carbon dioxide greenhouse 

“By the end of this century, we may have released enough carbon dioxide to raise the atmospheric temperature by two degrees centigrade.” [to be clear – this was a big overestimate, at least in the short-term]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various newspapers, especially the serious ones, were covering environmental issues with more enthusiasm. There had been the Torrey Canyon the year before. And in September, UNESCO had held a Man and the Biosphere conference in Paris. So smart people were beginning to scratch their heads about the consequences of modernity. We’d already had battles over pesticides and cars in cities and what they were doing towns, next up, the global issues…

What we learn is that carbon dioxide was popping up as an issue as early as 1968. Admittedly, as one that at this point was seen as if not speculative, then distant and if not distant, then entirely speculative. 

What happened next carbon dioxide continued to be for most a minor item on the list. By late 1969 the Financial Times could call it one of the more “venerable doomonger prophecies.” In November December 1969 the Scottish biologist Frank Fraser Darling had given it a serious mention in his Reith lectures. Already we’ve had Richie Calder talking about on the radio, and a couple of weeks after this Observer profile he gave his presidential address “Hell on Earth” to the Conservation Society’s Annual General Meeting. 

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: 

 November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
Science

November 17, 2023 – two degrees warmer, for the first time…

One year ago, on this day, November 17th, 2023, the globe was, according to one data set, two degrees warmer than pre-industrial levels for the first time in human history.

We now have results from a modern reanalysis product (ERA5) that shows November 17th was in fact the first day the world has experienced that was 2C above the preindustrial (1850-1900) average. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 423ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

A year ago today, we broke two degrees for the first time. 

At time of writing (or narrating) this in December 2023 it looks like a pretty sure bet that those temperature records will fall again, because we have an El Nino year on the way, and our emissions are higher. And we are about to get seriously smacked between the eyes. As Matt Damon, as Jason Bourne, said to the journalist at Waterloo, “you have no idea what you’re into”.

And as of November 2024 – yeah,the El Nino ended but the tempatures did not come down as some expected. Have a look at this

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/opinion/climate-change-heat-planet.html

[I will update this post closer to the time that I will also leave this text in. It’s the safest predictions I’ve made. I will be astounded if we don’t break that record.]

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: 

November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
AFrica Agriculture

November 16, 1982 – development aid and the greenhouse effect…

Forty-two years ago, on this day, November 16th, 1982, people talking about development aid could foresee a world where climate change would matter…

Conference on 16 November 1982 on

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OVERSEAS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Author(s): Ian Hunter, Dame Diana Reader Harris, Jose Furtado, Gordon Conway, Charles Elliott, Duncan Poore and Richard Sandbrook Source: Journal of the Royal Society of Arts , JULY 1983, Vol. 131, No. 5324 (JULY 1983), pp. 425-437 We have to see in the environment a rôle for resource management alongside sustained maintenance of future resource levels. It is not enough to say ‘inter-disciplinary’ out of a hat; it is necessary to produce a development methodology, a framework. Thus, in this concept of the resources of the future, we are not talking simply of the ozone or greenhouse effect and so on, vital as they are; we are talking of the food resources of the world, of raw materials, of growth, of the population of the future.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that intelligent people who were reading the New Scientist or the UNEP magazine Mazinga, or whatever, were, by this time, aware of global warming, the greenhouse effect and the impacts that it will eventually have, though they seemed to be maybe decades hence. And so it’s not totally surprising that within the debate about Development Aid dealing with the impacts of greenhouse would get  at least a passing mention. The issue was on the radar. And it puts into context this three years later, in 1985, It was bubbling under as an issue. 

What we learn, we knew 40 years ago, 40 plus years ago, this wasn’t a state secret. 

What happened next, the Villach meeting, the Brundtland Report, lots of fine words about Our Common Future. 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.

References

June 24 1985 – Climate change rears its head at a development meeting…

Also on this day: 

November 16, 1994 – Industry lobbyists trot out “sky will fall” argument against emissions cuts. Again. Of course. As ever.

November 16, 1995 – another skirmish in the IPCC war

November 16, 2021 – Chancellor cuddles up to oil bosses, of course.

Categories
Australia

November 15, 2004 – Bob Carr on Lateline- “no other developed country will be as severely affected by global warming as Australia.”

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 15th, 2004, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr responded to a CSIRO report with some astute observations about what was coming… (back when the ABC still had a backbone and a Lateline).

Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

Broadcast: 15/11/2004

TONY JONES: And for anyone who tuned in a bit late, we should point out Mike Bailey’s potential weather outlook was for November 15 in the year 2030.

Well, to discuss the issues raised in that report we spoke to the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, earlier today.

Bob Carr, thanks for joining us.

Clive Hamilton from the Australian Institute said today that no other developed country will be as severely affected by global warming as Australia.

Do you agree with him?

BOB CARR, NSW PREMIER: I do. I think of all nations, Bangladesh, or some of the small island states would only be worse affected but we stand, for example, to have even more erratic rainfall.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of November 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Millennium Drought was ongoing. The Liberal government of John Howard Government was showing itself to be utterly hostile to any action on climate change. And in fact, was at this point, heavily boosting coal and natural gas exports and for domestic use. Bob Carr was still premier of New South Wales and had done what he could to get carbon offsetting and carbon trading going in his own state, and also to get the other states on board for a bottom up emissions trading scheme. 

What we learn is that these issues were being discussed and debated by top people, in the right places 20 years ago, or longer. 

What happened next? Bob Carr stopped being premier at about that time shortly after, and later became Julia Gillard’s Foreign Affairs Minister. The emissions kept climbing of course, as did the atmospheric concentrations. 

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: 

November 15, 1958 – Academic Paper on “Changes in Carbon Dioxide Content of Atmosphere and Sea Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion” submitted

November 15, 1983 – “Energy Futures and Carbon Dioxide” report…

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal

Nineteen years ago, on this day, November 14th, 2005, 10 Downing Street was blocked with coal

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the G7 meeting in Gleneagles that summer had made all sorts of nice, warm promises about climate change. But Blair’s government was still planning to give approval to more coal-fired power stations. And they were going to use carbon capture and storage as some sort of cover for that, a Get Out of Jail Free card. And so here we have Greenpeace, pointing to the reality rhetoric gap. 

What we learn is that one of the guys driving the trucks that deposited the coal was an undercover asset for the Special Branch. Oh, the irony. 

What happened next? Well, starting 2006, there were attempts to kickstart a social movement around the issue. An umbrella “Stop Climate Chaos” group had been created. And the NGOs and social movements were trying to get hold of this issue. Without success, it must be said it all died away by 2010. Everyone was exhausted and more than that, just despondent. And the emissions kept climbing. As did the atmospheric concentrations.

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: 

November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech