Categories
Cultural responses Interviews

Interview with Crawford Kilian, author of “Icequake”

Crawford Killian, author of the 1979 weather-apocalypse novel Icequake, kindly answers some questions. You can find him here – crof@bsky.social 

Crawford Killian

1. A bit about who you are – where you grew up, education etc

I was born in New York City but grew up in North Hollywood, California until 1950. The family moved to Mexico City so my TV-engineer father could put a TV station (Televicentro) on the air. Four years later we were back in the States and I went through high school in Santa Monica. Then an undistinguished four years at Columbia, return to LA, two years in the US Army—and then, after a couple of dull jobs, my wife and I moved to Vancouver to get the hell away from the Vietnam War. I stumbled into college teaching, loved it, got my MA, and taught for 41 years before retiring in 2008.

2. Do you remember when/how you first heard that human activity might alter the planet’s climate, and what you thought (of course, in the 60s it was maybe dust, or carbon dioxide, warming/cooling)

Theories abounded in the 1960s and 1970s, and I ran across one theory circa 1974 from an Australian scientist who argued that the West Antarctic ice sheet’s own weight was melting its base and the lubricating effect could collapse the ice sheet into the Southern Ocean—where it would reflect enough sunshine back into space to trigger a new ice age. Yeah, I know. You had to be there. 

3. How did you come to write Icequake?  How long did it take?

I put aside the SF novel I’d been working on for years, did a lot of research, and wrote two drafts of Icequake. A lot of it got written in longhand during endless faculty association meetings. All told, it must have taken about three years. The second draft clicked—published in Canada, Commonwealth rights sold to Futura, a UK publisher, US rights to Bantam, who also wanted a sequel. That was Tsunami, very much the runt of my litter.

4.  How was it received?

Futura put a lot of effort into publicizing Icequake, and for a few dizzy weeks in the summer of 1980 it was outselling The Thorn Birds. It didn’t get much critical attention in North America, and Bantam didn’t put a real effort into it, but it did all right. A number of people who’d worked in the Antarctic thought it was pretty accurate, which I was very relieved to hear.

5.  Have you re-read it since?

I re-read it a year or two ago, and thought it held together pretty well. Of course I’d accelerated the collapse into a matter of weeks, not decades, but it still seemed plausible. Well, except for the concurrent collapse of the ozone layer and the earth’s magnetic field! I’d set the story in the near future of 1985, so of course much of the technology is really dated…not to mention the sociology. I had a couple of women working at New Shackleton Station, great rarities in those days, but not so much in the present.

6.  What have you been doing, these last almost-fifty years since it was published.

I’ve had a very pleasant half-century, thanks! As a full-time college teacher I could pay the mortgage while also writing SF and fantasy novels (and nonfiction books, and writing a weekly column on education for a Vancouver daily paper, the Province). I was able to teach a course in writing fiction based on my own experience, and several of my students went on to publish their own novels. I had fun exploring ideas, but none of my later novels made the kind of money that Icequake did. In the mid-1990s I’d tried to break out of genre, but the market was changing. After a couple of unpublishable novels I packed it in. No regrets—I was lucky to break in when I did. Since then I’ve written hundreds of articles on all kinds of subjects—mostly for the Vancouver online magazine The Tyee (https://thetyee.ca/Bios/Crawford_Kilian/ ). A lot of those articles are on climate change.

7. Complete this sentence.  “A knowledge of just how long we’ve known about the problem of carbon dioxide build-up gives us…” (you can say “nothing” or “perspective” or whatever!!) …gives us confirmation that we are very, very slow learners.

8. Anything else you’d like to say.

There really was a bit of debate in the 1970s about the trend of the climate, and I then had no particular opinion one way or the other. But by the early 80s it was clear we really were warming up, and I made passing reference to it in one or two of my later novels. Icequake went out of print long ago (though it’s still available as an e-book. But the science keeps confirming the book’s basic idea—that the Antarctic ice sheets, however vast they may seem, are transient conditions and subject to change.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 9, 2000 – Report on emissions trading

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 9th, 2000,

“On March 9 a report on emissions trading by Allen Consulting was released to the Victorian Government. Modelling various scenarios but excluding the effect of international trading, the report put the cost on carbon in the range of $42 to $148 a tonne.

Analysts point out that an international carbon market is inevitable, and that this will considerably reduce the price of carbon. Let’s hope it does. The Allen report also predicted percentage point declines in national GDP and employment.

Hordern, N. 2000. Greenhouse gas and the high price of hot air. The Australian Financial Review, 29 March, p.18. 

AND

MELBOURNE, March 10, AAP – A compulsory system of trading of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia would be too expensive, according to a report prepared for the Victorian government.

The report on greenhouse emissions trading by The Allen Consulting Group said a domestic permits scheme would also be too complex.

However, the report recommended that Australia participate in an international trading system when an agreed model becomes operational.

“On balance, we do not support the imposition of a mandatory domestic emissions trading system in Australia,” the report said.

“The costs of permits under such a system may well be higher than those incurred later under an international system and could, therefore, lead to an unnecessarily high adjustment burden.”

Anon. 2000. Greenhouse emission trading plan too expensive – Aust report.  Australian Associated Press, 10 March,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide had been around for a long time. There was even a mention of it in 1970 in a major Australian newspaper. But it really only kicked into high gear in 1988-89, Two attempts at introducing a carbon tax had been defeated, in 1990-91 and then, more dramatically, in 1994-95

Then attention had switched to the idea of emissions trading. And of course, the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed but not ratified – and it was still a hope that Australia would ratify it at this stage – was allegedly going to enable international carbon trading. 

The specific context was … Allen consulting…. Well, the fact that it’s one of Geoff Allen’s babies should tell you plenty.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been dreaming up policy “solutions” to climate change, which don’t tackle the need for urgent, steep reductions, but allow people to feel that they are doing something, and allow those people and other people to get rich from All the consultancy fees, legal fees, etc. 

What happened next. Well, after being gifted the 2000 presidential election by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, in March 2001, George W Bush followed instructions from the actual president, Dick Cheney and pulled the US out of negotiating around the Kyoto Protocol, In June of 2002 John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, did the same.

Eventually an emissions trading scheme came into force in Australia, thanks to the skill of Julia Gillard and her need to negotiate with Greens and Independents, but that was swiftly destroyed by the wrecking-ball liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, 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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 9, 1998 – First head of Australian Greenhouse Office announced – (Or “Infamous long AGO”)

 March 9, 2005- Albanese says “ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds.” #auspol

March 9, 2009 – Scientist tries to separate fact from denialist fiction

March 9, 2009 – Carbon price being weakened by lobbying…

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 8, 2007 – Great Global Warming Swindle 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 8th, 2007,

Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast on Channel 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that climate change had come alive as an issue in the summer of 2006 especially in the UK, thanks to various factors, including “Camp to Climate Action,” (which I was involved in), and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth. Therefore the backlash would have to begin. 

The specific context was that the idiots who made the documentary had form. They had produced something in the late 90s called Against Nature that said, in effect, “Hitler was vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are at least Nazi-adjacent.” 

What I think we can learn from this is that mud and shit will be flung by opponents of action towards stopping us killing ourselves more quickly than we otherwise might. This is especially the case if “stopping our killing ourselves quickly” involves cutting into the profits of rich white people and the so-called liberties of rich white people. It’s not just the rich, of course, I’m being tabloid here. 

What happened next

 The Swindle enabled middle class people who didn’t want to take a stand and change anything to say “Oh, well, there’s still doubt. Scientists are still not sure.” Blah, blah, blah. 

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: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice? 

March 8, 1971 – The Future cancelled for lack of interest…

March 8, 1978 – Minister for Science speaks proudly of Australia’s carbon dioxide monitoring…

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 7, 1980 – Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Forty six years ago, on this day, March 7th, 1980,

Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Report of a Workshop, San Diego, California, March 7-9, 1980 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822007443104&seq=7

and 

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Carbon_Balance_in_Northern_Ecosystems_an/cb0JAQAAIAAJ?hl=en

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was by about 1976-77 especially people within the senior levels of the United States science establishment – I’m thinking specifically of Alvin Weinberg, but it’s not just him – were really thinking hard about climate change from carbon dioxide build-up. So perhaps one of the key documents that I need to think about more is the August 1976 report from Oak Ridge. 

Anyway, there had been the Miami Beach meeting in 1977 and now more and more conferences and meetings, scientific workshops, all in the hope that the politicians could be persuaded to take it all seriously. And at this point, of course, the idea of synfuels were still in the mix as a response to the second oil shock. 

The specific context was that the first world climate conference had happened, and there was money from the Department of Energy for these sorts of workshops.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough in 1980 to be taking action (as per the CO2 Newsletter).

What happened next. More meetings. The crucial event was the election of Ronald Reagan that basically put the kibosh on all the effort, or most of the political policy efforts within the US.

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: 

March 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

March 7, 1991 – Australian Labor Party bragging about its green credentials…

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.

Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

March 6,1996 – Michael McCracken testimony about “skeptic” scientists

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 6th, 1996,

“On March 6, 1996, Michael MacCracken submitted prepared testimony to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives. One part of that testimony addressed recurring criticism by the skeptic scientists of IPCC findings that corroborate increased atmospheric warming and attribute that increase to human emissions of greenhouse gases”.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 198

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  with the coming of the climate issue in 1988, the denial campaigns had cranked into gear. Initially it was attacks on James Hansen, but by 1989 it had spread thanks to outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, which had been set up to shill for Star Wars, the Space Defence Initiative, and outfits like Western Coal Association and the “Information Clearinghouse on the Environment.” Things had really cranked into higher gear in 1994-95 because the  IPCC second assessment report was being produced, and the denialists needed to attack it and cast doubt on it as much as they could.

The specific context was that the Second Assessment report had come out in November of ‘95 and had included the fateful phrase that humans were already exerting a “discernible” influence on the climate. I think the wording had been suggested by Bert Bolin. 

Anyway, here’s one of the good guys, Mike McCracken trying to educate congresspeople about scepticism, science, climate, etc. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the denialist campaigns are partly about rich white men wanting to stay rich. They also provide a platform for superannuated scientists like Nirenberg and Seitz and Singer to feel that they are somehow still relevant when frankly they’re not – or certainly not relevant scientifically, but somehow manage to have an enormously pernicious influence for the future of our species. 

Though, to be fair, even without the denialist campaigns, we would have probably still fumbled the ball. We’ll never know. 

What happened next. The denialist campaigns kept going. Within a year or two, they’d found what they thought was “soft target” in their ongoing “Serengeti Strategy” – Michael Mann, and the caravan went 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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch

March 6, 2009 – first “Low Carbon Industrial Strategy” announced 

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”

Categories
On This Day

On this Day: March 5, weather computers (1950), presentations (1984) and Australian nutjobs (2007, 2011)

Seventy six years ago smart people do things with computers…

March 5, 1950 – first computer simulation of the weather…

Forty two years ago, another presentation. By the mid-80s, it was common knowledge.

March 5, 1984 – presentation on “Global Climate Change Due to Human Activities”

Liberal Senator is an idiot. Again.

March 5, 2007 – Nick Minchin versus reality, agai

Fifteen years ago, denialists go wild!

March 5, 2011 – Australian “wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork”

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
On This Day

On this Day – March 4, Academic paper about CO2 submitted (1970), the fake Greenhouse office gets a boss/skewered (1998/2004), Republicans are evil (2003) and perfect FT letter (2023)

56 years ago, an academic paper is submitted.

March 4, 1970 – “Variations of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere” submitted

28 years ago the entirely fake “Australian Greenhouse Office,” set up to be a stabvest for John Howard, gets a “boss” (who never briefs Howard).

March 4, 1998 – The Australian Greenhouse Office gets a boss…

A journo gets a good scoop. Evil Republican (tautology) pollster teaches them how to lie, dooming the planet even more than it was already doomed.

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

So important I blogged it twice…

March 4, 2003 – Republicans urged to question the scientific consensus…

The ombudsman reveals the AGO for what it is.

March 4, 2004 – The Australian National Audit Office skewers the Australian Greenhouse Office

Three years ago – another heart-breakingly brilliant letter in the Pink’Un

March 4, 2023 –Letter in FT: Global carbon price call is a classic delaying tactic

Categories
CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter commentary

“It is not knowledge we lack. What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions.” Arwa Aburawa on the CO2 Newsletter…

Arwa Aburawa – photo by Edward Sogunro

Arwa Aburawa is a filmmaker whose work focuses on race, the environment, and the enduring legacies of colonialism.  www.arwaaburawa.co.uk

In his book ‘Exterminate All the Brutes’ (1), the writer Sven Lindqvist carefully and meticulously traces the European colonial legacy of extermination and genocide as he treks across North Africa. And yet, he starts the book with a simple quote: 

You already know enough. 

So do I. 

It is not knowledge we lack. 

What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions. 

As I look over the previous editions of the CO2 newsletter that Marc wants to explore and examine, I know his work is guided by one quest: to carefully and meticulously trace how long we’ve known about the carbon dioxide and global warming problem. 

And yet, we all know that the answer, sadly, is much too long. 

Kevin Anderson states that since the newsletter’s publication, “humanity has become extraordinarily adept at observing and quantifying the world it is reshaping. With increasing accuracy, we can measure, model, and project the climate system, supported by ever more sensitive instruments, richer datasets, and stronger scientific confidence. Yet this growing clarity has not led to restraint or correction.” Michiel van den Broeke, reflecting on an article on glacial melts in the third edition states that it was “remarkably accurate.” So all the newsletters reveal, in great detail, is how even back in the 1980s we knew enough. 

You did. And so did I. So it is not knowledge we lack. 

But courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions. 

What does it mean to understand what we know and draw conclusions in this context? 

It means to take action. To transform ourselves and our societies.

It’s to ask the same question the writers of this newsletter asked, to ask the same question Dr Abi Perrin asked, the same question that Marc’s work is ultimately shaped by: When should the studying stop and political action begin?(2)

The newsletter once again gives us another answer; long ago. 

And yet here we are. So once again we are forced to look for the courage to ask why we have failed to take action and draw conclusions about that too.

When Lindqvist asks himself to draw conclusions and confront a reality he already knew – the roots of European colonialism, white supremacy, and genocide – he asks himself to really know and understand his society. To understand what is at the heart of his world and what drives it.

We must find a way to do the same thing. To confront the murderous, genocidal, white supremacist society which continues to accept the horrendous consequences of the climate crisis. A society where billionaire elites fight information, fact and science not with countering information but with a steady stream of confusion and distraction to destabilize us and rob us of any real clarity of what we might do next.

Ruth Wilson Gilmore defined racism as a premature exposure to death(2). I think that its also a fitting definition for the climate crisis and global warming. Colonialism never went away. It is here with us right now. It’s mutated, evolved into the same world which has failed to act on the climate crisis, 

And so it’s time, once again, to look for that courage Lindqvist talked about, and draw conclusions. 

References

Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California by Ruth Wilson Gilmore

Footnote

(1) A book Marc introduced me to many, many years ago now

(2) I think it’s rather telling that the first option mentioned in the newsletter as a course of action  for  Energy and environmental planners in the U.S. was to “Postpone the decision to halt the CO, buildup (inaction itself may be a form or action)”

Categories
Activism Canada Uncategorized

March 3,  2010 – protest about tar sands

Sixteen years ago, on this day, March 3rd, 2010, 

RBS bankrolling tar sands protest

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Canada has been looking at exploiting tar sands for a long time. Though they weren’t, largely, economically viable, however they became so for various reasons, technological advances, willingness to pollute the crap out of everything. And therefore protest movements sprung up to try and stop this insanity. There’s not much else to say.

And here is a google search…

Key Impacts on Oil Sands Development

  • Equalization of Tax Treatment: Before 1996, in-situ projects (which use wells) were treated differently than open-pit mines. The 1996 changes aligned them, allowing both to benefit from rapid capital write-offs, which encouraged the development of complex in-situ technologies like Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD).
  • Investment Surge: Combined with Alberta’s 1995 generic royalty regime (which featured a low 1% royalty until costs were recovered), the 1996 federal tax change helped trigger a 300% increase in capital investment in the oil sands after 1997.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=what+was+the+impact+on+oilsands+development+of+the+federal+CCA+change+in+1996+to+100%25+rate

The specific context was that we are dumb as a rock.  I am sure there is other specific context, but I can’t be bothered to look, and the key thing is that we are as dumb as a rock.

What I think we can learn from this is that our leaders chase the money and are wholly owned subsidiary Meat Puppets, for the most part. 

What happened next

The protest went ahead. In all probability A few skulls got cracked, a few cops got their jollies, got their rocks off. A few people got charged. Maybe some even got convicted, 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: 

March 3, 1980 – International Workshop on the energy climate Interactions in Germany

March 3, 1990 –  “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

March 3, 1990 – The Science Show on the “backlash to Greenhouse warnings”

Categories
CO2 Newsletter Energy Germany

March 3, 1980 – Amory Lovins at a workshop in Germany

On this day, 46 years ago, energy guru Amory Lovins was at a workshop in Germany.


As per the wonderful CO2 Newsletter of William Barbat –

From ‘ Efficient Energy presented Futures’, by Amory B, Lovins, at the Workshop on Energy/Climate Interactions, Munster, FRG, March 3, 1980, and pending publication with the Proceedings (Energy/Climate Interactions, W. Bach, et al., editors) by Reidel (Dordrecht, Netherlands)

“The integrated burn of fossil fuel, and the associated risk of global climatic change, can be minimized by economically efficient energy policies based on very efficient energy use and rapid deployment of appropriate renewable energy sources. Such policies can stabilize the rate of burning fossil fuel and gradually, over a half-century or so, reduce it to approximately zero. Economically and technically sophisticated recent studies in many industrialized countries have shown that it is cheaper, faster, and easier to increase national energy productivity by severalfold than to increase energy supply. If such studies are taken as an existence proof, a worldwide Western European material standard of living for 8 X 10 people could be maintained with today’s rate of world energy use ( 8 TW) or less, even with un-changed life-styles in the developed countries and complete industrialization of the developing countries. At these cost-effective levels of energy productivity, virtually all long-term energy needs can be met by appropriate renewable sources that are already available and that are significantly cheaper, faster, and otherwise more attractive than competing power stations and synthetic-fuel plants. Only major efficiency improvements and, secondarily, appropriate renewable sources can substantially change the timing of, or reduce the risk of CO2 problems.”

-Abstract.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been thinking about the likely consequences of the build-up of carbon dioxide from the early 1950s, and measuring its rise accurately from 1958.

The specific context was that by the mid-1970s,that measuring was turning to awareness/alarm and the desire to do something before the shituation got completely out of hand. This workshop happened in the aftermath of the First World Climate Conference, which had failed to be a rallying point.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew.

What happened next  We failed to do anything before the shituation got completely out of hand.

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: 

March 3, 1980 – International Workshop on the energy climate Interactions in Germany

March 3, 1990 –  “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

March 3, 1990 – The Science Show on the “backlash to Greenhouse warnings”