Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Guest post

Why bother prepping? A (brilliant) guest post

A week ago a very good article called “If we’re all going to die in the collapse, why bother prepping?” appeared.

I sent it to a friend whom I have a great deal of respect for. He replied with this below, and kindly gave his permission for it to be used as a guest post.

At this point, being as prepared as possible for emergency states, for other ways of meeting basic needs, to look out for your neighbours, and so on, should be de rigeur. Of course, so many folks are struggling to just make ends meet as things stand, so there’s already millions (billions?) who can’t “prep” in any meaningful way. Seems likely that the countries that will bear the initial brunt of deadly heatwaves are the ones where the weather is already hot, which are also in many cases where there is a lot of population growth, as well as large absolute population numbers.  So the idea of hitting 10Bn or whatever numbers the UN is chucking about based on “normal” seems increasingly unlikely to me.  We have, I think, somewhat forgotten just how dreadful the “Four Horsemen” can be when they really get going.

I suppose what I find odd about posts like these is the idea that we are certain to see an “end” to “civilisation” and that necessarily means the death of every human being.  I’m not trying to play down the horror of what’s already here, and accelerating. Just that if we were to fast-forward 50 years, what would we expect to see? Humans *are* really intelligent, adaptable, and there is an awful lot of us. So if I had to guess, there will be a few million (tens of millions, perhaps) humans who have witnessed “The Fall”, have had human folly indelibly branded into their racial consciousness, and who are living in a world that is more hostile and less fertile than the one that even we grew up in. But not, I don’t think, one that is wholly uninhabitable. Fast forward 50,000-100,000 years, humanity might even learn to live in something like harmony with the “new earth”, if they can last that long.

Or there might be something lurking “out there” that really will do away with every last human (and a great deal of other life as well, more’s the tragedy). In which case, I can’t stop it, and neither can you. In either case, doing our best to carpe as many damn diems as we can in the meantime, trying to help our fellow living things as we go, seems like the best we can do at this point.

Just that claiming anything in the absolute seems more like a human desire for certainty, than anything else. 

Of course, all of this thinking is happening in a different partition of my brain than the parent part, because otherwise I’d go mad, and that won’t help me help anyone….

This is not a future I’m cheering for, in some sort of misanthropic fug. It’s just the one that, if I stand outside myself and try to extrapolate forward, seems the most likely. It’s worth reminding ourselves that there are many shades of grey in commonly-used terms like “doomed”, “fucked” and whatever other adjectives you might choose to apply to humanity’s future, and the lighter ones, even if locally, even if not forever, will always be worth fighting for

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 7, 1995 – Business Council of Australia vs a carbon tax. Of course

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, February 7th, 1995, the lobby group for big business successfully fought off a carbon tax.

Canberra — The Business Council of Australia yesterday attacked the Federal Government’s proposed carbon tax, saying that it could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries.

Drawing on a report released by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics yesterday, the council said a carbon tax, at any level, would result in lost jobs, production and exports.

The executive director of the council, Mr Paul Barratt, said any carbon tax would have a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries.

Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a fierce battle going on over a proposal for a carbon tax at federal level in Australia, and the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Mining Industry Council, (who made the tie-in official as the AIGN later) were at the forefront of a campaign to stop it. And one of the ways – not the only one,  but one of the ways – was to say that the “sky would fall” economically speaking.  

And what you do is you get some economic modelling by so-called independent experts who set their parameters in such a way that the sky will fall, you then turn that into a report, write a press release. You give it to some tame journalists, who then get it put up on the front page of a newspaper. Then get questions asked in Parliament. It gets picked up on television and the “common sense” that action on climate change will cost a fortune is just that little bit further embedded. 

And they have been playing this game for a very long time. They’re very good at it and the reason they keep playing it is it’s usually a winning tactic for them. 

What happened next. The carbon tax was defeated in February of 1995 before the BCA and its chums had to pull up the really big guns. Policy advocate interest shifted to emissions trading schemes. One was finally introduced in 2012, only to be abolished two years later. Australia deserves everything it gets.

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: 

 Feb 7, 1861- 161 years ago, a scientist identifies carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 6, 2007 – Rudd taunts Howard on 2003 ETS decision

On this day, February 6 2007 new Labor leade Kevin Rudd had asked Prime Minister John Howard if a submission proposing an emission trading scheme had gone before cabinet in August 2003 and if that proposal was rejected.

Rudd – and frankly everyone else – knew the answer was “yes”. It had been extensively reported, since at least 2004. In August 2003, Howard had met with some business mates and killed off the Cabinet proposal (which the entire Cabinet, including Joe Hockey, Peter Costello etc were behind). See here – August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Rudd was just trying to embarrass Howard, who had a couple of months before performed a screeching U-turn and appointed Peter Shergold (civil servant) and some business cronies to look at an an ETS.

What we learn – it was all theatre

What happened next. Howard’s U-turn made him look weak rather than caring, and he was swept from power. Kevin Rudd then saved the day (subs, please check).

Categories
Australia

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 5th, 1992, the Leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, decided he would not bother meeting with those irritating greenies, who had Betrayed Their Word after the fateful lunch on January 15 1990 (they hadn’t, actually, but it made for a good “Dolchstoss” myth…).

Anon, 1992. Hewson snubs Conservation Foundation. Canberra Times, 6 February, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberals felt that they had been shafted by the greens in March of 1990 and that they had not yet let this go. The Liberal view had hardened  – they felt that the 1993 election was eminently winnable, especially now the widely disliked Paul Keating was PM. Bob Hawke had given a piss weak response to John Hewson’s Fightback! and so, had been toppled by Labour, who chose Paul Keating, who was deeply unpopular with the Australian public as Treasurer. Meanwhile, green issues were no longer salient. And therefore, Hewson thought that telling the Australian Conservation Foundation to go fuck itself was a no lose proposition which would throw red meat and support to the headbangers. 

What we learn is that policies and politics are done by humans who have their senses of status and that can have long-term consequences because there is path dependency. 

What happened next Hewson managed to lose the unlosable election in March 1993. Prime Minister Keating went on to shit all over environment issues and especially climate issues which he considered amorphous. You know the rest. 

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.

See also

See also 12 0ctober 1989 piece by Andrew Fraser on Alexander Downer and market forces

Also on this day: 

Feb 5, 1974 – Energy security, meet anti-Arab sentiment #propaganda

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Feb 5 1990 – A president says what he is told…

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

February 4, 2014 – CCSA and TUC release Economic Benefits of CCS report

Ten years ago, on this dy, February 5th, 2014, the rather interesting trade association the Carbon Capture and Storage Association was busy throwing more words and evidence at policymakers, in a tie-in with the TUC.

RE: CCSA Additional Written Evidence to Energy and Climate Change Committee Inquiry into Carbon Capture and Storage 

The Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) submitted evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Inquiry into Carbon Capture and Storage in September 2013. Since then, the CCSA and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) have published the joint report “The Economic Benefits of Carbon Capture and Storage in the UK” on the 4th February 2014 and we would like to bring this report to the attention of the Committee as additional evidence to the Inquiry into CCS.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/48637/pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.2ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context here was that CCS had already spent 10 years being a “yeah we’re definitely interested” technology in the UK. BP had given up on Miller field in 2007. And the first competition had fizzled out. But now the second competition was well underway. And people were beginning to look beyond the second competition to building an actual ecosystem of facilities, pipelines, storage. And the CCSA and the TUC, while their members probably fought like tooth and dog and cat and nail on issues such as well, wages and terms and conditions etc, they had a common interest in promoting CCS as the saviour of the coal industry and of heavy industry. 

What we learn is that technology can have multiple meanings to different organisations, who realise that they have to make common cause. 

What happened next.  On 25th of November 2015,UK Chancellor George Osborne shat all over CCS. It then took a serious effort to revivify it. And despite that effort, here, we are still without any clarity. 

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: 

February 4, 1963 – A UN conference on technology for “less developed areas” starts

February 4, 1993 – Australian business versus the future (spoiler: business wins)

Feb 4, 2002- Global Climate Coalition calls it a day (“Mission accomplished”)

Categories
Austria

February 4, 1980 – IIASA taskforce on Climate and Society

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 4th, 1980, smart people in the orbit of the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis began another of their meetings.

The Task Force meeting on the Nature of Climate and Society Research, 4-6 February 1980, was the third major event in climate  studies at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that IASSA had been scratching its head about climate for a few years now. In 1975 it had hosted Nordhaus and others on the economics of mitigation. It had famously also supported the work of Cesare Marchetti on carbon capture and storage. It had held a workshop in 78 and it was doing energy studies stuff. So what we see here is not an early “outlier” but a continuation of an existing process with Americans and Europeans working cheek by jowl. And don’t forget, the First World Climate Conference had taken place in February of the previous year… 

What we learn is that from the early mid 70s onwards, intelligent and/or high status, well-connected people in the scientific advice giving game were alive to the issues.

What happened next? Kellogg wrote a book that was published on the first of January 1981. Other people were beavering away on the same issues including Schneider. There’s also the Great Adaptation and so forth.

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

Ausubel, J.H. & Biswas, A.K. (1980). Climatic Constraints and Human Activities; Proceedings of a Task Force on the Nature of Climate and Society Research, February 4-6, 1980. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ISBN 978-0-08-026721-0

https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/1222/

Also on this day: 

February 4, 1963 – A UN conference on technology for “less developed areas” starts

February 4, 1993 – Australian business versus the future (spoiler: business wins)

Feb 4, 2002- Global Climate Coalition calls it a day (“Mission accomplished”)

Categories
Australia

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1994, the fossil fuel lobby was trotting out its favourite argument – that Australia was being treated “unfairly” in the climate negotiations, and throwing “developing countries” in to make it a more confusing message and one harder to counter.  

Australia and the developing economies of the world could bear an unfairly high proportion of the costs of controls on greenhouse emissions in the event of any global agreement to adopt uniform emission-reduction targets, the Outlook 94 conference was told yesterday.

Grose, S. 1994. Unfair burden’ on Australia. Canberra Times, February, 4, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that President Clinton’s energy tax had been defeated the year before. But it simply wasn’t clear that a carbon tax was dead in Australia too. And the whole question of Australia’s commitments under the climate treaty, which had been ratified, and previous December, was making rich fossil fuel outfits nervous. And so at “Outlook 94”, which was one of the energy sector’s watering holes and ideas-swapping or meme-swapping opportunities. They, including John Daley, were pushing hard on the old idea that Australia was a special case that was being unfairly treated. 

What we can learn is the rhetoric of unfairness is pervasive, and that bullies and assholes will often deny, attack, reverse victim order – DARVO.

What happened next?

The proponents of climate action put their eggs in the carbon tax basket which was entirely sensible to their eyes. And they were defeated. The emissions kept climbing. And you know the rest.

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: 

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Australia

February 2, 2010 – Abbott on Direct Action, CPRS for 3rd failure…

Fourteen years ago, on this day, February 2nd, 2010,

the new Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, put out a media release about his absurd non-policy “Direct action on the environment and climate change” policy.

And on the same day – 

The Rudd government, for no earthly reason, tabed its “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” for the third time.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Abbott had become Liberal opposition party’s leader, in early December 2009, toppling Malcolm Turnbull who wanted to back Rudd’s scheme (which was piss-weak). The Rudd carbon pollution reduction scheme had been defeated for the second time in the House of Representatives and the Copenhagen COP had ended in failure. So now, Abbott was being forced to put up an alternative, which is a curious position for someone who thinks that the science of climate change was “crap.” Liberal voters needed some sort of fig leaf for squaring their love of privilege, power, so-called “free markets” with any concerns that they might have for the environment. Meanwhile, for reasons I really don’t understand, the CPRS legislation was submitted for a third time but was clearly doomed. Go figure – what a waste of effort. 

What we can learn is that the politics are bewildering. Once you get down to brass tacks, stupid overconfident people – and that can apply to several characters in this story – can cause enormous damage. 

What happened next? 

Rudd was toppled for being a jerk and crucially no longer a vote-winner. Abbott was one of the most effective opposition leaders of all time. He destroyed, not just Gillard, and Rudd, but also the possibility of emissions trading and carbon pricing in Australia, an astonishing achievement. 

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: 

Feb 2, 1992- that “sarcastic” memo about exporting pollution…

February 2, 1996 – denialist sprays #climate science with his bullshit

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Thirty four years ago, on this day, February 1st, 1990, an article about possible carbon taxes from the Financial Times (London) was syndicated in the Australian Financial Review (aka “The Fin”).

“Drastic measures to combat global atmospheric pollution caused by burning carbon fuels were urged yesterday by the International Energy Agency.”

Anon. 1990. Carbon Fuel Tax May Limit Pollution Levels. Australian Financial Review, 2 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422.3ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at Nordwijk in November of 1989, nations had agreed to keep talking about talking about negotiating a climate treaty. There were other meetings coming up. And the International Energy Agency was sticking its oar in with the suggestion of carbon taxes and pricing mechanisms. Also there was a federal election pending in Australia, the climate issue was very salient. 

What we learn is that debates about carbon pricing have been shaped by prestigious powerful – or prestigious, at least – outfits like the IEA in ways that I didn’t fully understand for my PhD thesis, but here we are. 

What happened next, Bob Hawke narrowly won the March 1993 election with small g. green votes, and was therefore obliged to follow through with this idea of ecologically sustainable development. 

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: 

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climate

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

Feb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker

Categories
Activism Education Guest post

Half a century of “environmental education” #GuestPost

A guest post by Dr Paul Ganderton

Just over 50 years ago, one of the most innovative and remarkable syllabuses in modern English education came into being. Its story, how it started, flowered, and then died have lessons for us all today.

There seems to be two points commonly made about teaching environmental/ecological concepts to school students: it’s mostly absent in syllabuses and it hasn’t been done. The former is certainly backed by evidence, but the latter is largely untrue. This story, and what we can learn about it, are the focus here. The great push comes from a determined and unlikely source, but let’s go back a bit.

English education has had an interest in “nature studies” from the earliest times of educational technology. The BBC Natural History Unit was producing radio programmes from the late 1950s onwards. However, this was mostly aimed at primary schools. We would have to wait for the 1960s to see further progress. At this time, curriculum innovation was being strongly supported which led to numerous initiatives of which one was a semi-academic/practical approach to Rural and Environmental Studies ‘O’ level run through the University of London’s Schools Examination Board (ULSEB). An early proponent of this subject, Sean McB Carson (a Hertfordshire local education officer), saw the need for a more academic, higher-level qualification. This turned into a committee which eventually produced the first A level (again to be taken up by ULSEB) called, not un-naturally, the Hertfordshire Syllabus (compare/contrast this with a current version!). From 1972 to 1992, this became, and remains, one of the most innovative syllabuses in secondary science. It’s worth noting that McB Carson went on to refine his ideas in another influential book, Environmental Education.

What was so novel about this syllabus? Looking back, I think it was the confluence of a number of factors:

  • Sociological – McB Carson as a driving force, ULSEB as a supporter, an innovative Ecologist as Chief Examiner (Dr PD Coker). There was also significant student interest in the senior secondary years;
  • Geopolitical – the general move towards environmental awareness and concern characterised (earlier) by Silent Spring and later by the Stockholm Conference in 1972;
  • Educational – a syllabus unlike others that demanded deep knowledge that was integrated into a systems-thinking approach with an exam system that demanded you demonstrate it!

How did it work? There were a few minor changes over the years but this gives an accurate overview:

  • Topics:
    • Natural environment and limits of the resource base: solar systems and the transport of energy; atmosphere; hydrosphere; lithosphere; biogeochemistry;
    • Ecosystems: climatic and soil factors; population and community ecology; population control
    • Man-Environment Interactions: Human requirements for life, developmental ecology, societal development, domestication of plants and animals, environmental pressures from industrial revolution onwards;
    • Field Study – environmental conflicts and pressures;
  • Pedagogy – One of the most daunting (and wonderful) aspects was that there was no set textbook! Students (and staff) really had to know about a wide range of topics from the workings of the solar system to fundamental ecology, to planning law and all topics in between! Standard books of the time include Odum’s Fundamentals of Ecology, Ehrlich’s Population, Resources, Environment but there were many others often just covering a particular part (Cullingworth’s early Town and Country Planning was invaluable). The fundamental aim was to make sure that students had a sound background knowledge, both theoretical and applied, that would allow them to analyse a question from any perspective;
  • Assessment – Leaving aside the internal assessment, the external exam comprised 3 aspects – fieldwork to be assessed internally and sent off for adjudication, paper 1 – 3 hours on basics of the entire syllabus and paper 2 which has two essays requiring integration from all of the syllabus and a planning question. This last, innovative exam gave students an Ordnance Survey map and a planning issue to solve e.g. site a new town. It demanded a knowledge of planning law and practice. Ironically, our local authority planning department gave their planners the task and all failed!

So much for the technical side. What of the impact it had? As an educator and student, it demanded (and the exams tested) both core knowledge and its application. It was taught in the novel ideas of systems thinking and connectedness. Students were (in my college at least) fiercely proud of the subject and considered themselves environmentalists. Many went on to take degrees in ecology, environment, and related topics. Some became planners, others academics. We have some who have risen to prominence in the global conservation community, an international prize-winning photographer as well as those who went on to others field of endeavour. As a subject it rose in importance as a result of Stockholm in 1972 and was, alongside companion ‘O’ level seen as a vital subject to study. Sadly, the following years of warfare, oil price shocks (the first but not the last) and the rise of Thatcher meant that the subject was stumbling just as it started to take off (environmentalism, then as now, didn’t trump oil and commerce – or Thatcher’s dislike!). It’s interesting to speculate where it might have been were that not the case. Personally, I taught the course for almost all of its years and was a ULSEB subject panel member, question writer, examiner and part of the team developing interest in the course. I was also, sadly, the last person standing as exam board politics saw it dispatched in favour of topics with more political support.

If you’ve read this far, thanks! What message would I like you to take away from this? That it existed, that it demonstrated that you could have a meaningful and very rigorous subject and exam that could allow students to debate with knowledge and care for the planet. It opened up students’ eyes to the possibilities of doing things differently. Perhaps if this subject had developed as it should, we wouldn’t be needing school strikes today, 50 years after the subject started to debate the same thing I taught in 1975!