Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United Kingdom

April 15, 1969-  Coventry lecture – Mellanby says Air Pollution could cause flood…

Fifty five years ago, on this day, April 15th, 1969, a well-known British Scientist was sounding the alarm.

Anon, 1969. Air Pollution Could Cause Flood- Expert. Coventry Evening Telegraph, April 16, p.10

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.4ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more senior British scientists were switching on to the danger of carbon dioxide. And Mellanby was one of the first, maybe first, to make a public song and dance about it.

What we learn is that well, whoever went to that event in Coventry in 1969, will have been sensitised to the issue.

What happened next? Mellanby kept talking about it. Mellanby was okay with the Blueprint for Survival of January 1972.

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: 

April 15, 1965 – Murray Bookchin warns about carbon dioxide build-up

April 15, 1974 – war criminal Henry Kissinger gives climate danger speech

April 15, 1974 – Kissinger cites climate concerns…

Categories
United States of America

 April 14, 1980 – Carter’s scientist, Frank Press, pushes back against CEQ report

Forty four years ago, on this day, April 14th, 1980, the US chief scientific advisor was not happy about people bigging up the carbon dioxide threat…

The following April, Frank Press, the head of the OSTP, reacted angrily to a draft of a Council on Environmental Quality report that he felt greatly overemphasized the dangers and underplayed the uncertainty. “At this moment of great national trauma with respect to energy, inflation, and foreign affairs, I believe it is a serious disservice to the public to raise widespread concern about an issue with hazards, that are, at the moment, so speculative and uncertain.”27

Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins and Making of Changing Climate Author(s): Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel
IN: Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, Vol. 40, No. 3
(Summer 2010), pp. 318-349

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists had been banging the drum for a while. And Frank Press had been on the receiving end of this, as Jimmy Carter‘s Chief Scientific Adviser. There’s a memo from 1977. There was the Global 2000 report underway. 

This, from the Council on Environmental Quality is a separate issue. The CEQ had been set up in 1970 under Nixon. I think Press was probably worried that too much attention was being paid to what was still possibly regardable as a speculative issue, despite the previous year’s Charney Report. 

It was an election year, and anything that could pin Carter as a nervous ninny was to be avoided. This was difficult since the man had already sat there dressed in the cardigan and given a “malaise speech.” But that’s the context. 

What we learn is that scientific advice is never just about the science, especially from a political appointee. 

What happened next? 

Well, I didn’t know how much influence Press had. The CEQ report did finally come out that maybe it was ready before January 1981 when it was released. Maybe it was held back until after the election?

The CEQ report was released in January 1981. But it was a dead duck because the Reagan administration was about to take office. 

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: 

April 14th, 1989 – 24 US senators call for immediate unilateral climate action

April 14, 1964 – RIP Rachel Carson

Categories
Australia

April 13, 2011 – GE and others say Gillard is on right track

Thirteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, 2011

On 13 April 2011 the company [GE] was joined by a number of others, including AGL, Linfox, Fujitsu, BP and IKEA, in issuing a statement backing the government.

(Chubb, 2014:173)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was this was the middle of a ferocious battle over the Emissions Trading Scheme that the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change had developed and advocated. And the Coalition, then in opposition, was trying to say that all business was opposed because it would mean extra costs, as per their brilliant attack line “a great big tax on everything.” 

So the fact that GE and other companies said, “nah, it’ll be fine” should have been far more newsworthy. But it didn’t fit the frame. And also, the companies probably weren’t terribly keen on being dragged into a culture war. And so it never really gained a lot of traction. 

What we learn is that “business” is invoked by political parties as if it’s a monolith. And it’s always, almost always far more nuanced than that. But in the words of that sociologist “fuck nuance “.

What happened next, despite the sturm und drang, and the sound and fury emanating from Abbott and the climate denialists, and anti carbon tax people, the legislation passed, became law. And, according to its advocates, it actually started to reduce emissions. (Others say that this was an artefact of extra hydro electricity from Tasmania in the mix.)

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: 

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

April 13, 1992 – Denialist tosh – “The origins of the alleged scientific consensus”

Categories
United Kingdom

April 12, 1955 – Coventry Evening Telegraph – “Melting Ice Could Menace the World”

Sixty nine years ago, on this day, April 12th, 1955, a regional newspaper in England explained what was coming.

Anon, 1955. Melting Ice Could Menace the World. Coventry Evening Telegraph April 12 p.7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was, for many years, a consensus that the world was warming up. It wasn’t quite so clear what was causing it. This article explicitly mentions carbon dioxide as one possible culprit.

What we learn is that the idea of the world warming was not particularly controversial. But the mechanism was, and what Gilbert Plass, drawing on Guy Callendar, did was give a plausible explanation. That’s a really important distinction, something I hadn’t quite figured out.

What we learn is that the British regional press back at this time was still worthy of the name more or less (though I’m sure it didn’t feel to campaigners at the time that it was!). One mustn’t look at the past with rose-tinted glasses. 

What happened next The Coventry Evening Telegraph did keep reporting on the issue. There was just a general awareness that things were warming up, and that there might be trouble ahead.

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: 

April 12, 1992 – seminar asks “How sustainable is Australian Energy?” (proposes switch to gas)

April 12, 1993 – “environmental economics” gets a puff piece

Categories
China Coal

April 11, 2014 – Greenpeace China releases coal report

Ten years ago, on this day, April 11th, 2014 Greenpeace China releases report

6 things you should know about coal

Issuu https://issuu.com/greenpeace_eastasia/docs/the_end_of_china_s_coal_boom-_6_facts_you_should_k

Interview https://www.ecologic.eu/10568

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that China was industrialising at warp speed. That of course meant coal and all that that entails, both in local air pollution and also carbon dioxide emissions. 

What we learn from this is that outfits like Greenpeace China, my goodness, what a tough environment to be in…

What happened next? China then also overtook the US as number one emitter (but not per capita). And China has continued to be a Rorschach test. You can see whatever you want to see in it

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: 

April 11th, 1987 – A matter of… Primo Levi’s death

 April 11, 1989 – “Ark” sinks its credApril 11 – Interview with Sophie Gabrielle about memes vs Armageddon….

Categories
Australia Business Responses

April 10, 2006 – “Business warms to change” (Westpac, Immelt)

Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 10th, 2006, business groups split on climate action.

New research on global warming has caused a split at the top end of town, writes Deborah Snow.

WESTPAC chief executive David Morgan had an interesting story to tell at an invitation-only breakfast for a handful of journalists in Sydney last week.

The anecdote concerned a recent private conversation with the head of the giant General Electric Company in the US, Jeff Immelt.

“He said to me he was virtually certain that the first action of the next president of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change. And he wasn’t saying that as a casual political comment … he is [allocating] billions of dollars worth of investment in the confidence of that development.”

Snow, D. (2006) Business warms to change The Sydney Morning Herald 10th April , page 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified and become international lore, sorry, law. The European Emissions Trading Scheme had come into effect. And the big banks were looking at all the money that might be made from carbon trading, and thinking “we’d like a piece of that.” There was already a failed history of getting a Futures Exchange going or getting Australian Prime Minister John Howard to listen to insurers and banks from like 2003. But it’s always worth another roll of the dice, another go. And that’s what happened here. 

What we learn is that a lot of what’s driving their alleged philanthropic efforts is actually about sniffing out new markets, especially if the international environment, for want of a better phrase, is changing. 

What happened next, the Westpac thing went nowhere. But it added to the load and in September of the same year, the issue broke through and in November 2006, Howard was forced to create this Shergold Report process to look at emissions trading. 

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: 

April 10th, 2010 – activists hold “party at the pumps”

April 10, 2013 – US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

Categories
United States of America

April 10, 1969 – Nixon schmoozes North Atlantic Council on environment

Fifty five years ago, on this day, April 10th, 1969, new US President, Tricky Dick Nixon, was schmoozing, trying to get ahead of the environment issue (huge since the Santa Barbara Oil Spill) and also distract from the ongoing atrocities in Vietnam.

Nixon to North Atlantic Council April 10, 1969 – “Having forged a working partnership, we all have a unique opportunity to pool our skills, our intellects, and our inventiveness in finding new ways to use technology to enhance our environments, and not to destroy them.”

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-commemorative-session-the-north-atlantic-council

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Nixon was bombing the crap out of Vietnam. It turned out he had not got a “secret plan for ending the war”, as he had promised during the 1968 election campaign. Bombing Vietnam back into the Stone Age was causing a certain diplomatic froideur. And so he was hoping to throw the environment onto the table as something for the Europeans to focus on instead of all the dead, napalmed, Vietnamese babies. 

What we learn is that there are dead cats and fluffy cats. You throw a dead cat on the table when you want to distract from something but you can also throw some kittens onto the table and say, “Aren’t they nice?” Both tactics are used. 

What happened next? The Europeans were largely unconvinced. They had their own European Conservation Year. There were talks about NATO and its Committee on Challenges for Modern Societies. And Daniel Patrick Moynihan was writing memos by September.

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

Hamblin, J.D. Arming Mother Nature: The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism 

Also on this day: 

April 10th, 2010 – activists hold “party at the pumps”

April 10, 2013 – US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

Categories
Australia

April 9, 1991 – Peter Walsh goes nuts, urges BHP to sue Greenpeace

Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 9th, 1991, ex Federal Treasurer Peter Walsh shows he is basically a demented thug. 

The former Minister for Finance, Peter Walsh, attacked Australia’s major conservation groups yesterday saying he hoped Australia’s largest company, BHP, would use common law to bankrupt Greenpeace for interfering with seismic testing.

Senator Walsh said the major environmental groups were trying to subvert economic development — an objective they had pursued with some success.

Launching a book which emphasised market solutions to environmental problems, Senator Walsh said extreme elements of the conservation movement were more concerned with “destroying” industrial capitalism than protecting the environment.

“One wonders how long a country which is unquestionably some distance down the Argentinian road will continue to allow organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation to subvert economic growth, and particularly the growth in the traded goods sector, to the extent that they do,” he said.

A long-time critic of the conservation movement, Senator Walsh fired a broadside at Greenpeace over its recent campaign to stop BHP’s oil exploration in Bass Strait. The organisation argued that the seismic tests would disturb whales which breed in the area.

He accused Greenpeace of hypocrisy in trying to stop oil exploration using petrol-powered rubber dinghies and a diesel-powered mother-ship.

“I hope that BHP sues Greenpeace under the common law and collects damages large enough to bankrupt the organisation.”

The book, Markets, Resources and theEnvironment, was produced by the Tasman Institute which Senator Walsh acknowledged many in the Labor Party considered “only marginally less obnoxious” than the League of Rights, or the Queensland National Party.

Lamberton, H. 1991. Walsh attacks greenies. Canberra Times, 10 April, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 


The context was that there were battles going on over the making of environmental policy. The Ecologically Sustainable Development process was unfolding. There were negotiations, that Australia was part of, for the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit the following year.

Walsh was no longer in Parliament, and so was less constrained and was becoming the batshit crazy loon in public that he probably had been for a while. And he was hoping that mining giant BHP would beat up on Greenpeace. BHP was a bit more canny than that. Greenpeace was fat with new membership, (but it couldn’t keep them and would plummet. afterwards). 

What happened next? Well, Walsh went on to be one of the founding members of the Lavoisier Group. Bless it. 

What we can learn from this is that recently retired politicians have stood up resentments that they like to get off their chest, and it makes good newspaper copy. And they’re suffering from Relevance Deprivation Syndrome… So you get to see fireworks, at least for a while. 

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: 

 April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

April 9, 2008 – US school student vs dodgy (lying) text books

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

Categories
Germany IPCC UNFCCC

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, April 8th, 1995, Fred Pearce of the New Scientist points out that there is a gamble going on (as did Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman three years earlier).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619720-300-world-lays-odds-on-global-catastrophe/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first COP had just finished. Rich nations had been resisting emissions cuts using scientific uncertainty as their final excuse. But Swedish scientist Bert Bolin, who had been banging on about climate change, and carbon dioxide build up since 1958, at the latest, was telling them that the IPCC Second Assessment Report would be out later this year and that they shouldn’t expect to be able to use the uncertainty card for very much longer, more or less.

What I think we can learn from this is that the really sharp battles at the end of 1995, were all about that. I hadn’t quite grokked that before.

What happened next

Well, there were really sharp battles at the end of ‘95. From the middle of ‘95 efforts by denialists to smear individual scientists (the “Serengeti Strategy”) and the process in order to slow progress towards a serious protocol.

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: 

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

April 7, 2010 – Ziggie tries to sprinkle Stardust – 50 nuclear reactors by 2050

Fourteen years ago, on this day, April 7th, 2010, the nuclear bullshit gets sprayed again, and not for the last time…

NUCLEAR advocate Ziggy Switkowski has said an Australia powered by up to 50 nuclear plants would pose little risk of an environmental disaster such as this week’s threatened oil spill on the Great Barrier Reef.

Dr Switkowski, chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, said Australia should build 50 nuclear power stations by 2050, doubling the number he suggested to the Howard government in a key report three and a half years ago.

Kelly, J. 2010. Ziggy Switkowski calls for 50 nuclear reactors in Australia by 2050. The Australian, 7 April.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Copenhagen had been a failure.. Australian Prime Minister Kevin “great moral challenge” Rudd was bailing on climate change action. 

It was clear that policy responses to climate change and carbon dioxide buildup were not progressing even at an arthritic snail’s pace. And therefore, if you believe that nuclear power is the answer, then trot it out again. Because it will get you a day’s headlines. And so it came to pass. 

See also Alvin Weinberg in January of 1979, btw. 

What we learn from this is that we are dogs returning to our vomit. And now, a handbrake turn in the metaphors: we keep playing the same games, the same losing cards, because it’s the only card we have in our hands. 

What happened next? Nuclear continues to go nowhere and will go nowhere, because in Australia where would you build them? There are no population centres big enough to meet the effective demand. And in any case, the price of solar and wind is plummeting so that the numbers simply don’t add 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: 

April 7, 1980 – C02 problem is most important issue…”another decade will slip by” warns Wally Broecker to Senator Tsongas

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…