Author: drmarchudson

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…

Categories
Australia

April 6, 2012 – Genetically-modified humans?

Twelve years ago, on this day, April 6th, 2012 the Sydney Morning Herald runs a piece on genetically modified humans. In it S. Matthew Liao talks about ‘a radical suggestion for fighting climate change’

S. Matthew Liao talks to the Sydney Morning Herald about changing ourselves biologically in order to fight climate change.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/final-frontier-of-climate-policy–remake-humans-20120405-1wfo6.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Copenhagen had ended in failure. The pieces of the Ming-ing International negotiation vase that had been dropped that day, were still being glued back together. It wasn’t at all clear that there would be any societal economic, political, technological response to carbon dioxide buildup worthy of the name. And so of course, attention turns to the science fiction ideas of simply adapting to a much warmer world shipped with genetically modifying corn. Why not do the same for humans? Replicants ”I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe”, etc, etc. 

What we learn is that everyone’s hungry for publicity and so outlandish shit will get printed. And somewhere in a lab in Switzerland or Boston or Tel Aviv or London, or Sydney Shanghai or Rio de Janeiro this sort of shit has probably been attempted. At least it would make a good sci fi novel. And indeed, there is that very mediocre film, The Bourne Legacy. 

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 6, 2006 – Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

April 6, 2006 – the anti-climate dam of John Howard begins to crack…

Categories
Australia Coal

April 5, 2005 – Coal21 holds first conference

Nineteen years ago, on this day, April 5th, 2005, the coal lobby got moving on spouting idiotic guff about carbon capture and storage.

5th April 2005 COAL21 first conference

https://fossil.energy.gov/archives/cslf/sites/default/files/documents/Taskforce_PublicCommunicationandOutreach.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was still banging on about technology as the solution, not that messy UNFCCC process with all those poor nations with their hands out. 

And of course, Kyoto had been ratified. So Australia was going to have to engage with whatever came after Kyoto if it wanted to be a player. The Coal21 process was shambling along, it had been launched just over a year earlier. And everyone still believed (or pretended to do so) that technology would save the day.

What we learn is that there’s no necessary connection between reality and technology advocacy.

What happened next? The CCS bandwagon rolled on, especially thanks to huge injections of cash from Kevin Rudd. But then, regardless, the wheels fell off in 2009-10, in Australia at least. 

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 5, 1971- a UK scientist explains “pollution in context”

April 5, 2008 – Charlton Heston dies, star of first movie to mention the greenhouse effect

Categories
United States of America

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC work Working Group Five

Sixty years ago, on this day, April 4th, 1964, a working group of the President’s Scientific Advisory Council got looking at climate change…

PSAC was the second presidential task force to whom Revelle had introduced the issue of CO2. The first was a subgroup of President Johnson’s Domestic Council, which released a report in 1964. Joseph Fisher, Paul Freund, Margaret Mead and Roger Revelle., “Notes Prepared by Working Group Five, White House Group on Domestic Affairs,” April 4 1964. 

(Howe, 2014:219) [Mead and 1975 conference, with Stephen Schnenider)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Roger Revelle, Conservation Foundation people, Charles Keeling, etc were looking at the carbon dioxide numbers and thinking, “you know, this is one to keep an eye on” as per the 1963 meeting.

And so on to Johnson. Within the Presidential Science Advisory Committee, which had been set up in the immediate aftermath of Sputnik, the climate issue was just one of those things that people thought about. (I’m not sure how Margaret Mead came to be involved, but I’m glad she was!)

The thing that we learned is that there they are within the policy subsystems beavering away, trying to get people to take this stuff seriously. 

What happened next? 

Well, a little under a year later, Johnson gave a special address to Congress about environmental pollution. And you know what? It mentioned CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. And that was thanks to Revelle. 

In November 1965 there was a long report, led by John Tukey, that kinda-sorta emerged from this PSAC group, but went much broader.

How did Margaret Mead get involved? She and then-husband Gregory Bateson will already have known about the issue via G. Evelyn Hutchinson, I’m sure. 

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 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-upApril 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
United States of America

April 4, 1979 – DOE and AAAS meet on social science and climate

Forty five years ago, on this day, April 4th,1979, the Department of Energy and American Association for the Advancement of Science began a four day meeting about social sciences and climate change. 

4-7 April Annapolis Maryland DOE and AAAS meeting on social science and climate. See Felli “The Great Adaptation”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that from 1977 onwards, the Department of Energy I (don’t think it was called quite that then) and the AAAS were interested in climate and what could be done; or, perhaps more how societies might adapt because mitigation didn’t really figure that brightly at this stage. And so these sorts of workshops and meetings were happening all the time. This one was not particularly pivotal. I just mentioned it because I can… 

What we learn is that the question of societal responses to climate change was well on the agenda by then. 

What happened next – William Kellogg had no trouble writing a book published in 1981. We kept knowing, and not knowing…

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 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-upApril 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis