Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Aviation United States of America

December 28, 1978 – fly the plane. Don’t keep tapping the fuel light.

Forty five years ago, on this day, December 28, 1978, things go wrong.

With the crew investigating a problem with the landing gear, United Airlines Flight 173 runs out of fuel and crashes in Portland, Oregon, killing 10. As a result, United Airlines instituted the industry’s first crew resource management program. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been other recent airline disasters which were ultimately down to to crews failing to do the smart thing. My favourite is the Tenerife KLM PanAm disaster caused by an arrogant Dutch guy – but broader systemic breakdown and bad habits was behind it of course, it always is.

What I think we can learn from this

 it was these disasters that got the aircraft manufacturers and the State and the insurers together and insist that the way that pilots and crews interacted was the subject of better training. So you get crew resource management and notechs- the non-technical aspects. This would be a huge boon for social movement organizations but they just can’t get their heads around this stuff…

What happened next

Crew Resource Management became a thing. Aviation by the 90s had become absurdly safe, once the hijacking and blowing up aspect got taken care of.

Even with the 737 disasters and the icy pilots, if you look at the number of flights and number of passengers vs actual loss of life from commercial aviation it is absolutely safe now. Pity about the planet, but you can’t have everything…

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

Gawande, A. The checklist manifesto

Categories
Cultural responses Denmark International processes UNFCCC

December 27, 2009 – Art exhibition in Copenhagen saves the world

Fourteen years ago, on this day, December 27, 2009 , an art exhibit closes in Copenhagen blah blah..

https://www.artforum.com/news/in-copenhagen-artists-tackle-global-warming-as-un-climate-summit-continues-24410

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was bummed out, because all the delusional lies that they had been telling themselves about Copenhagen had been exposed. Nobody was saved and art certainly was not going to save the damned planet. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there will always be groupies and hangers on and opportunist hacks wanting to say that they’re making some sort of contribution. I don’t want to be more of a philistine than I already am but seriously, fudge that noise.

Am I too cynical?

What happened next

Artsy people have kept artsy-ing. It’s helped a lot.

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.

Categories
Science Scientists

December 26, 1968 – “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution” symposium

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 26, 1968, Fred Singer, who had been present for the foundation meeting of the International Geophysical Year, and would go on to be a weapons-grade asshole denialist, organised a symposium (it was part of his day job). That symposium was about the global effects of environmental pollution for the American Association for the Advancement of Science

https://doi.org/10.1029/EO051i005p00476

Smart cookie called J. Murray Mitchell was there and laid it out.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US Federal Government was making some of the right noises about climate change. It had just found out that there would indeed be a United Nations meeting in 1972. But this meeting will have been organised months and months in advance of that final decision.

What’s amusing about it is that Fred Singer became one of the leading the nihilists denialists.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew way back when. We knew.

What happened next

Caroll Wilson organised the 1970 Workshop in Williamstown about Man’s Impact on the environment. The following year there was Man’s Impact on Climate, organised by William Kellogg, in Stockholm.

This 5 years was the period where are the new institutions and collaborations got hashed out – GARP, then SCOPE and so on…

J. Murray Mitchell was exceptionally blunt (and accurate) in his warning in 1976 – “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century then we’ve had it.”

We were and we have.

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.

Categories
Netherlands

December 25, 1988 Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands says “the earth is slowly dying”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 25, 1988 Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands came out swinging, contradicting what she had had to say three months earlier…

“Together with the publication of the report ‘Concern for Tomorrow’ (Netherlands Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection), the Queen’s 1988 Christmas speech represents a watershed moment for sustainable environmental policy in the Netherlands. Queen Beatrix observed that ‘the earth is slowly dying and the inconceivable – the end of life itself – is becoming conceivable’. Her speech, devoted almost entirely to problems of environmental deterioration, was in open disagreement with her earlier address to Parliament in Sept. 1988. The latter speech, written by the Dutch Council of Ministers, stated that recently ‘the country has become cleaner. This applies in particular to water and air: E. Tellegen, ‘The Dutch National Environmental Policy Plan’ (1989) 4(4)” The Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, pp. 337–45, at 337.

van Zeben 2015, p.340 (footnote 1)

“We human beings have become a threat to the planet”

Greenpeace Global Warming Report 1990, p.113, apparently

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in the same way that Australia would sit up and take notice about the ozone hole and skin cancer, Dutch people would sit up and take notice about sea-level rise. But what’s interesting is that the Queen here explicitly went against what the government had forced her to say at the opening of Parliament 3 months earlier – that basically everything was fine and hunky dory. Her statement had a bit of a bombshell impact, at least in the Netherlands.

What I think we can learn from this

That some royals were willing to come out and call it like it actually is. 

What happened next

Dutch academics came up with Transition Management which was basically “let’s get everyone in a room hold hands and then Shell and other big actors can basically take over the process, empty it of all meaning and threat to the incumbency, and then we’ll have to scratch our heads and pretend to do some soul-searching about the role of academia and academics within advanced capitalist States, but we won’t – we will just keep going with the same bullshit because nobody has any other idea, or if they do they don’t know how to implement it.” 

Queen Beatrix abdicated in 2013

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_of_the_Netherlands

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

 van Zeben, J .(2015) Establishing a Governmental Duty of Care for Climate Change Mitigation: Will Urgenda Turn the Tide? Transnational Environmental Law, 4:2, pp. 339–357 doi:10.1017/S2047102515000199

Categories
Renewable energy

December 24, 1990 – Australia as renewable energy superpower

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 24, 1990, a letter appears in the Canberra Times… 

Renewable energy 

YOUR excellent report from Washington, DC, presenting evidence that renewable energy could substitute for coal, oil and gas in the 21st century (CT, December 17) needs to be supplemented with some information about the Australian situation… Commonwealth support for renewable energy has been very weak.

Canberra Times 24th December 1990

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122332903/13000347

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was talking about moving away from fossil fuels moving towards renewables. Would it be possible? Over what time-scale? etcetera 

Except when they weren’t and they were trying to sit on things, which is what the Australian government eventually took to doing.

What I think we can learn from this

The Politics of technology R&D – what gets funded, what doesn’t, by who, with what end-goals is always really interesting, well usually.

The crucial thing is this is Australia which could have been ahead of the game on wind power solar geothermal hydrogen you name it. But the problem was we had so much damn coal and natural gas, and the people who owned those resources also, in effect, owned the state and the policymaking process and have won all the big battles.

What happened next is we didn’t do that “clean energy transition.” We may yet in the future who knows, but it will be too little too late, by definition.

The age of consequences is beginning and the dildo of consequences never arrives lubed.

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

Categories
Renewable energy Uncategorized

December 23, 2003 – Vestas opens Tasmanian wind turbine factory

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 23, 2003, a wind turbine factory opened in Tasmania…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 2002 the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target had finally started at a national level. It was smaller than had been promised and later than it needed to be, but nonetheless in existence; wind was always going to be a large part of that. And being able to manufacture wind turbines in Australia for the domestic market seemed like a good idea at the time the Danish company Vestas opened a factory in Tasmania.

What I think we can learn from this

 is that it would have been possible to have a proper domestic manufacturing industry. Yes you would have started with foreign-owned companies but it didn’t need to have stayed like that. But it wasn’t to be…

What happened next

Vestas just pulled out a few years later as it was obvious that the Howard government was going to do everything it could to slow down or stop renewable energy in Australia. And it wasn’t clear if that would ever end – so, cut your losses. 

See tomorrow’s post…

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..

Categories
technosalvationism United Kingdom

December 22, 1759 – “What have ye done?”

Two hundred and sixty three years ago, on this day, December 22, 1759, 

Samuel Johnson published an essay that you should read – “What have ye done” in the Idler – and see my blog post too.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 280ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

 What have ye done, starts by talking of the high hopes of the Royal Society. Well, about them –

The nobility and intelligentsia, however, occasionally became critical and even constructive. John Eveelyn, a noted busybody and do-gooder and one of the founding members of the Royal Society, wrote a pamphlet in 1661, which was ordered to be published by Charles II, “Furnigofiuim, or the Inconvenience [page break] of Air and Smoke of London Dissipated; together with Some Remedies Humbly Proposed.”

 In 1686, Justel presented before the Philosophical Society “An account of an Engine that Consumes Smoke.” The suggestions made were lively and imaginative rather than practicable, but it is worthy pointing out that Justel’s smoke-consuming monster embodies a concept that has recently been emphasized by Professor Fritz Zwicky of Cal Tech.

(Carr, 1965: 34-5)

The context was that Samuel Johnson was having to knock out these sorts of essays with stunning regularity. I’ve not read a lot of Johnson but I think I have read all the essays in a collection that confirm this man was a stone-cold genius. Probably quite unpleasant, but stone cold genius.

What I think we can learn from this

 well if you take what Johnson says to heart and manage your expectations of changing the world downwards, maybe if we had all done that we wouldn’t be in this mess. 

[Biographical note – I don’t know where I first encountered mention of it but I think it was in when I was living in Bristol in 1996 or 7 because I remember borrowing a copy from the Bristol City Council library; I think it was in store and here we are.]

What happened next

Johnson appeared disguised as the late Robbie Coltrane in an episode of Blackadder the Third and it was freaking hilarious.

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

 Carr, D. (1965) The Breath of Life. New York WW. Norton & Company

Categories
Europe UNFCCC

 December 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 21, 1993, 

“the European Union agreed to ratify the FCCC without any commitment to an energy/carbon tax. The debate continues, with all governments increasingly interested in raising revenue from energy consumption in the home and on roads.”

Boehmer‐Christiansen (1995; 185) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC climate treaty had had far fewer teeth than the Europeans wanted, thanks to the successful resistance of US President George Bush, his Chief of Staff John Sununu and others. There were no targets and timetables for emissions reductions but at least they’d seen the back of George Bush having been defeated in the 1992 presidential election by Bill Clinton of the Democratic party, for what that was worth (not much when it came to climate.)

What I think we can learn from this

This is just one of those moments of history. Thirty years. And what has been achieved since then? Half of fuck all – though the Europeans will tell you that massively reduced their emissions so maybe that’s something I don’t know-  if the cause of that has been the same as in in the UK – deindustrialisation and some uptake of different forms of energy besides coal – that’s a question I could look into.

What happened next

We have kept tipping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow…

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..

Categories
Canada

December 20, 1983 – Documentary on “the Climate Crisis” shown

Forty years ago, on this day, December 20, 1983, a documentary about what was coming was shown.

1983 Climate Crisis

This summer’s record temperatures may be one of the signs that the earth’s atmosphere is warming up. NOVA looks at the climate predictions and hazard warnings for the next century, based on the effects of our soaring consumption of fossil fuels.

Original broadcast date: 12/20/83 

Topic: environment/ecology

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 1983 had been a big year for environmental issues. You had the June conference of the Global 2000 people but most significantly in October you’d had the EPA and NAS reports, which presumably were part of the impetus for this documentary which you can see online.

Some of this footage may have been taken from the 1981 Anglia TV documentary “Warming Warning” – which would explain the director credit for Richard Broad…

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

What happened next

The NOVA documentary got repeated and I think in 1986 it was on in New York and I did a blog post about it without knowing all the details.

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..

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

December 19, 2010 – CCS dies in Queensland

Thirteen years ago, on this day, December 19, 2010, the CCS dream dies.

“The announcement by the Queensland Government that it plans to transition out of the Zerogen vehicle, does not signal a significant impediment to the continued development and demonstration of CCS technologies in Queensland,” Mr Hillman said. In its announcement today the Queensland Government makes it clear that it remains committed to the development of CCS and will continue to be a significant funder of this technology along with the Commonwealth Government and industry.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the CCS bubble was bursting because promises were not being backed up and investors were taking a long hard look at the numbers and of course by this time it wasn’t clear when or even if there would ever be a carbon price in Australia, and whether it would be high enough. But you’d need a seriously high carbon price to make CCS work and if you had a really high carbon price you’d incentivise other forms of electricity generation such as wind and solar ahead of coal-supported CCS – just the facts of life.

What I think we can learn from this 

CCS keeps falling over and it keeps being put back up on its feet, a bit like nuclear, because there are strong lobby groups trying to help it to happen, and it helps the numbers add up.

What happened next

 CCS died in Australia but as all has been put on life-support and is now still being supported in 2023 by people who who either too thick to know better or do know better. 

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..