Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

December 19, 1988 – the launch of “Ark”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 19, 1988, celebrities get on board an Ark, for a star-studded launch…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was this exuberant ex-Greenpeace director (who had been a Daily Mirror hack) and had written in the early 70s about environmental depletion. He had gotten some money to put together a big manifesto. They had celebrities on board and it was going to be all-singing all-dancing. There were going to be little Arks, it was going to combine the business end, the social movement end the celebrity end – all singing all dancing all of the time.

And it did not come to pass

What I think we can learn from this

People get high on their own supply. People get drunk thinking that what needs to happen will therefore happen because it needs to happen. But that’s circular and it doesn’t reflect reality. But then reality is no fun.

What happened next

By July 1989 Ark had collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.

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
Activism United States of America

December 18, 2008 – Tim DeChristopher does his auction action

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 18, 2008, American climate activist Tim DeChristopher took a bold action that landed him in prison.

 In December 2008, he protested a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oil and gas lease auction of 116 parcels of public land in Utah‘s redrock country by successfully bidding on 14 parcels of land (totaling 22,500 acres) for $1.8 million with no intent to pay for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_DeChristopher#Appeal

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

that the state is endlessly auctioning off land for extraction; that’s the ideology of extractivism. In 2008 the climate crisis was already absolutely freaking clear – you’d had the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, you were getting all the weird weather and worse. Everybody knew. 

What I think we can learn from this

When you spoof the money for you interfere with the money myths, people get particularly irate because well it’s a fetish and nobody likes to be reminded that it’s a fetish.

What happened next

Tim Christopher did some jail time, and here we are.

See also Jonathan Moylan and the ANZ bank spoof.

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
Uncategorized

On getting things wrong – a meditation and apology

First thing is – I screwed up, and there’s absolutely nobody else to blame.

I posted yesterday this blog post.

It’s something that I wrote the first draft of a year ago, and had updated at some point since.

The problem with it is that the quoted scientist, Mike Pentz, was not warning about C02 build-up, but rather ‘waste heat’. If I had been paying closer attention, I would have spotted that.

The consequence is that I’ve put out a blog post (and it gained some traction – a bunch of likes and retweets) which is inaccurate, which pisses me off.

Fortunately, someone on Twitter, Mike Holderness, very kindly pointed out my error. See here.

The whole story – that some scientists were worried about an ice age from all the dusty and aerosols (Reid Bryson, and early Stephen Schneider), while others worried about ‘waste heat’ (Howard Wilcox, Mike Pentz) while still others (Keeling, Bolin, Flohn, MacDonald, Commoner, Kingsley Dunham, etc) were worried about carbon dioxide – is a MORE interesting version than what I told.

So, that means that a) people have been misled (albeit unintentionally) by me and b) I look like either i) I don’t know what I am talking about or ii) I am deliberately over-egging the pudding (which I don’t need to do – there are plenty of earlier-than-1973 examples of carbon dioxide warnings). Not a good day’s work…

It happened, as far as I can reconstruct, because I was so taken with the opportunity for a “50 years” post (I do like my round numbers) and didn’t read the article carefully enough. Then there was the symmetry with the Canberra Times article comparing climate to nuclear war… So, I saw what I wanted/needed to see, and didn’t double-check…

Can this be avoided in future? Well, I can try, but to be honest, in the absence of someone vetting every single post, I can’t exclude the possibility that it will recur. If it does I’ll do a retraction/explanation.

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Europe

December 17, 2008 – European Parliament says yes to funding CCS

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 17, 2008, the European Parliament accepted a deal that included CCS funding via ETS. (source – Lerum Boasson and Wetestad, 2014:409)

“On 17 December 2008 the European Parliament passed the directive governing phase III of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which will make available until 31 December 2015 up to 300 million free allowances from the new entrants’ reserve for the construction and operation of up to 12 demonstration projects of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and innovative renewable energy projects” (Hansard).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Europe was looking to improve the climate performance of its energy sector. I think industrial emissions were not such a big concern and certainly weren’t being approached via CCS as they are now. There were people pushing for CCS who absolutely hated it

There is a wonderful quote from the Liberal Democrat Chris Davies who was an MEP at the time 

“xxx”

Meanwhile the British were pushing forward with their CCS competition and down under Kevin Rudd had spaffed 100 million of Australian taxpayer money against the wall to create the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute so things were looking up for this technology.

What I think we can learn from this

The European Union had convinced itself to go along with yet another American scheme. They’d gone along with emissions trading and now were doing the same for CCS. Has either been effective? No. So have the Americans been able to force the agenda onto people who not only ought to know better but do know better? Yes.

What happened next

Then it fell apart, like it always does.

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
United Kingdom

December 17, 1973 – “Global warming will make nuclear war look like a fire cracker in your backyard.”

UPDATE – Ooops. I got this wrong. See here. (17 Dec 2023)

Fifty years ago today, on 17 December 1973 the physicist Mike Pentz (Open University, and Cambridge) gave a public talk warning of the trouble ahead…,

Compare with 14 and a half years later-

Anon, 1988. Scientists warn of devastation. Canberra Times, 2 July, p.6.

TORONTO, Friday (KRD).—Toronto scientists and policymakers from 46 nations say global damage from “greenhouse” warming and other man-made atmospheric changes may ultimately be second in magnitude only to the devastation of a nuclear war.

They also called on industrialised countries to tax fossil-fuel consumption to finance a fund to protect the atmosphere and drastically cut carbon-dioxide emissions.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the scientific consensus around carbon dioxide as a major problem was still in its early phases, but plenty of people could see real trouble ahead, on the basis of 19th century physics.

What we can learn

It was basic physics. You didn’t really need that big a crystal ball to figure it out.

What happened next

The British State faffed its way through the 1970s on this question. The first report, finally released in 1980 was a “maybe, yeah, nothing to see here” effort. Only in 1988 did the issue finally break through.

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

 December 16, 2008 – “The Australian” attacks on climate change

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 16, 2008, the “news” paper the Australian goes to town on Kevin Rudd’s (admittedly wretched) white paper about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Kevin Rudd had become Australian Prime Minister in November 2007. A large part of his “offer” was to do something about climate change. He had sidelined independent expert Ross Garnaut for being too independent, and set up a green paper and white paper process. There had been enormous lobbying and in the words of Garnaut “never had so much been given by so many to so few” 

The Australian had been largely sceptical, talking up both scientific doubts and economic consequences. And of course this is in the context of global financial crisis which had started in September 2008.

The white paper had been released to mostly disappointment (and a physical protest at the National Press Club) a week earlier and this Australian page 3 page spread is part of the response.

What I think we can learn from this is that some people thought Rudd was going far too far others thought that there was no ambition. The latter were correct.

What happened next

Rudd bottled it. In 2009 Rudd tried twice to get legislation through with virtually no skill. The contrast with Julia Gillard with the minority government in 2011 is remarkable.

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

December 16, 2004 – “2 degrees of warming to be a catastrophe”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, December 16, 2004, we got another warning.

SCIENTISTS have warned of the catastrophic consequences of a 2C rise in global temperatures.

They say it could threaten Latin American water supplies, cut food yields in Asia and lead to a rise in extreme weather in the Caribbean.

The warnings were issued in a report led by a group of European scientists and presented at a UN conference on climate change. It was released as delegates from almost 200 nations refined details of the Kyoto Protocol, a global warming treaty, to be implemented in February.

Hobart Mercury (2004) Just 2C could ruin us Hobart Mercury 16th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the 2000s scientists became more certain and more desperate about the impacts of a rapidly warming world. And some newspapers would pick up on this periodically, although the Hobart Mercury is part of Murdoch’s stable, it for whatever reason had always had slightly more independence (being, I think, the only Murdoch paper that did not support the Iraq War).

What I think we can learn from this

We have known exactly what was coming for us, and we have not acted. Of course unpacking that “we” is crucial. It mostly means our lords and masters…

What happened next

We did not act on this warning and all the other warnings that have come since. There is also such a thing as “too late.”

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 Denial

December 15, 2009 – Monbiot versus Plimer on Lateline

Fourteen years ago, on this day, December 15, 2009, UK commentator George Monbiot took on and demolished Australian geologist Ian Plimer.

2009 Monbiot versus Pilmer on Lateline http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs

http://www.monbiot.com/2009/12/17/showdown-with-plimer/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was talking climate because of the recently concluded Copenhagen conference and the general upsurge in concern over the previous three years. Plimer had written a book called “Heaven and Earth” which has become a major denialist tract. Monbiot was always up for a ruck. Monbiot had already put paid to David Bellamy’s appearances by pointing out that Bellamy had completely misunderstood an aspect of glacier retreat.

What I think we can learn from this

That is rare for a single intellectual crushing and humiliation to particularly matter, but cumulatively they can, I guess.

What happened next

Plimer kept plimering. Monbiot kept publishing. Kevin Rudd did not announce the double dissolution election in response to the blockage of his wretched legislation. The Australia climate wars just got worse. 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..

Categories
Scientists United States of America

 December 15, 2005 – James Hansen versus Bush again…

Eighteen years ago, on this day, December 15, 2005, it was – Hansen versus Whitehouse again… 

“NOW BACK TO the Keeling talk and its repercussions. There was no press release or press conference about the talk, but the American Geophysical Union meeting attracts a substantial number of reporters. BBC radio did an impromptu interview with me as I left the speaker’s platform. Bill Blakemore used a quote from my talk in an ABC News story the next day. The New York Times and the Washington Post, in articles about international climate negotiations, made note of my comment that 2005 was likely to be at least as warm as 1998, the previous warmest year in the period of instrumental data. The International Herald Tribune extracted several paragraphs from my talk, verbatim, making a short article under my byline.

Unbeknownst to me, this modest level of publicity was causing growing concern in the Office of Public Affairs at NASA headquarters. And the next week, on December 15, this festering consternation of NASA officials exploded into what the agency’s public affairs employees described as a “shitstorm.” The immediate cause of the explosion was the statement on ABC’s Good Morning America program that “NASA is announcing that this year, 2005, is tied for the hottest year ever.” ABC did not mention my name, but indeed I had provided our analysis of global temperature for the meteorological year (December through November) to Bill Blakemore the previous day….

Also, J. T. Jezierski, Griffin’s deputy chief of staff and White House liaison, told Bowen that on December 15 he had received an angry call from the White House and added that “the ‘sustained media presence … of Dr. Hansen’ was the dominant issue all that day and the next for every top official in public affairs and communications at the agency—himself, chief of staff Paul Morrell, strategic communications director Joe Davis, and David Mould—and that these officials also held discussions with Michael Griffin during those two days.” – 

James Hansen, Storms of my Grandchildren

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Bush administration was trying to gag the troublesome priest James Hansen. Of course this was a rerun of what had happened in 1989 when Al Gore found out about the previous attempt, it had led to the Bush administration having to concede that yes it would enter into climate negotiations.

What I think we can learn from this is that rather than deal with physical reality, powerful actors will try to shoot the messenger or silence him.

What happened next is that Hansen retired and continued to be a troublesome priest.

Meanwhile the carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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
United Kingdom

December 14, 1992 – UK “releases “National programme on carbon dioxide emissions”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, December 14, 1992, UK Department for Environment releases “Climate Change: our national programme on C02 emissions.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420.4ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US had succeeded in weakening the climate treaty which the UK was clearly going to ratify. Meanwhile the “Our Common Inheritance” White Paper, published in 1990, meant that there had to be a national programme.

What I think we can learn from this is that promises of action are followed by promises that implementation will happen. Implementation plans are drawn up but then often nothing gets done…

What happened next

Nothing got done. There was a cola white paper. There was talk of carbon taxes and carbon pricing but really would be the early 2000s before any substantive climate action happened in the UK because emissions went down thanks to the switch from coal to gas and ongoing deindustrialisation of the UK.

And so while the numbers are going down, there’s no pressure to actually try to do anything.

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..