Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

December 4, 1989 – Greenhouse tax urged…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 4, 1989 a climate action advocate suggested a perfectly sensible economic response to climate change – tax things that are unhealthy, as governments were doing for cigarettes…

The Federal Government should move to control car exhaust emissions and expand the public transport system to discourage people from using cars, a greenhouse effect expert said in Melbourne on Tuesday. [December 4/]

Dr Ian Lowe, the Director of Science Policy Research Centre at Brisbane’s Griffith University, was speaking at the launch of his book explaining the greenhouse effect’s repercussions and ways to avoid them.

He predicted a transport system dominated by hydrogen and electric cars in 50 years.

Some countries already issued fuel efficiency targets for cars, taxing car-owners according to how well they met the targets, while others issued mandatory efficiency targets for company-operated fleets, he said.

Anon. 1989. Greenhouse gas tax urged. Green Week, December 5, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone had been talking about the problem, and possible targets, for a year. But what, specifically, to do? Well, a tax is a logical response to an environmental problem, 

What is amazing is just how little traction it got. Of course, there was a very successful campaign. First against the existence of the problem then the fallback position is to admit that there might be a problem but the solution is too expensive. 

What I think we can learn from this

We knew enough and we didn’t act. 

What happened next

We didn’t put any taxes or prices, or economic disincentives in place. And guess what happened? Business as usual, which is literally destroying the planet’s ecosystems.

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
International processes Sweden United Nations

December 3, 1968 – UN General Assembly says yes to a conference about environment. C02 mentioned.

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 3, 1968, the United Nations General Assembly voted yes to hosting a big, all-singing all-dancing Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. 

The unanimous adoption of Resolution 2398 Problems of the human environment at the twenty-third session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on December 3rd, 1968 marked the culmination of the first phase of the “Swedish initiative” 

Paglia Swedish Initiative. 

Thanks to work by a Swedish diplomat whose “own reading of media reports on climate change during autumn 1968 concluded that scientific opinion was shifting towards warming as the more likely outcome of human interference in atmospheric processes” things were different.

In contrast to Palmstierna’s memorandum and Åström’s statements at ECOSOC earlier that year—which presented the particle-induced cooling scenario first—the UNGA speech instead foregrounded and explained in far greater detail the potential for a rise in the Earth’s surface temperature caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, which is presented in the speech as a pollutant.1 No other forms of air pollution are mentioned in Åström’s December 1968 speech, including acid rain, which Palmstierna had in his memorandum gone into some detail in describing in terms of the scientific basis, and its environmental and economic effects.16 Paglia 

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

The context was that the previous year, Sweden had seen the release of two bombshell books about environmental degradation. Sweden had put the proposal by their diplomats that the UN have a look. And surprisingly quickly, given how the UN usually works this was accepted.

In July of 1968 a Swedish diplomat had even referenced temperature imbalance but with more emphasis on the problem of dust. This was three years after Lyndon Johnson had him and had mentioned carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

What I think we can learn from this

Uggh. We knew.

What happened next

The Stockholm conference happened in June 1972. Not much changed (though the UNEP was formed, smaller than its proponents wanted, of course…)

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 United States of America

December 2, 1981 – “Is the world getting warmer?” (YES)

Forty two years ago, on this day, December 2, 1981, a not-particularly good article appeared in the Christian Science Monitor

Starr, Douglas, 1981.. “Is the world getting warmer?”. Christian Science Monitor December 2

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the https://allouryesterdays.info/2023/07/23/july-24-1980-global-2000-report-released/Global 2000 report had been released. And in the dying days of the Carter administration, in January 1981 the Committee on Environmental Quality’s Gus Speth had released other stuff. Other people were releasing things as well. And this is not as good an article, I think, as the Wall Street Journal one from August of 1980. That’s a “must.”

What I think we can learn from this

There was plenty of awareness about climate change in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

What happened next

There was a pivotal meeting of scientists in Villach, in September 1985. The scientists started pushing hard. In 1988 the issue broke 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
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

December 1, 2008 – Climate Change Committee fanboys carbon capture

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 1, 2008, the first report of the brand-spanking new “Committee on Climate Change” was released. It fanboys CCS.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Committee on Climate Change, which had been formally established by the Climate Change Act, but must have been appointing people, paying people, and generally being underway. This is its first report about reducing carbon emissions. And predictably enough since it’s the middle of the first competition on CCS there is a big fanboy section about carbon capture and storage. 

What I think we can learn from this is that CCS is very “logical” within our system, that there is mitigation deterrence to worry about, and that actual saving of carbon dioxide has not happened yet at any meaningful scale. And whether it will be remains to be seen. My money would be on “No”.

The Committee on Climate Change or the Climate Change Committee, as it wants to be called, has continued to produce really useful work ever since, though some (waves at Kevin Anderson) think it should have done much more holding-feet-to-the-fire…

What happened next

The CCS competition collapsed in 2011. Was replaced with another in 2012. It had the plug pulled in 2015. And here we are again.

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 States of America

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 30, 1998, two of the Seven Sisters join at the hip.

1998 – Exxon and Mobil sign a USD$73.7 billion agreement to merge, thus creating ExxonMobil, the world’s largest company

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Mobil had, by this time been doing “advertorials” and so on (see Herb Schmertz- https://marketingcraftsmanship.com/2013/07/05/the-herb-schmertz-era-when-public-relations-had-some-balls/

that the German provocateur and artist Hans Haacke had spoofed.

What I think we can learn from this is that Omnicorp is on the horizon, as per the Onion “Our Dumb Century”. These immensely powerful concentrated interests well, you can break them up and they recombine, recoalesce. It’s like that scene at the end of Terminator two (spoiler), where he’s been in the liquid nitrogen, they shoot him, he is destroyed. And then the pieces and Mercury start to come back together.

What happened next

Exxon continued to fund denialist groups (provoking the Royal Society into writing a public letter in 2006 telling them to knock it off), and is now getting sued for what it did to block action.

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

That Hans Haacke/Bourdieu book “Free Exchange”

https://raphaeldelamer.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/bourdieu-pierre-haacke-hans-free-exchange.pdf

Categories
Australia

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 29, 1988, Australian members of parliament have a grip and grin photo opportunity to show how much They Care about the greenhouse issue. See this from the Canberra Times.

Parliamentarians of all political persuasions were encouraged to test the Wets and the Dries yesterday. But in this case the Wets and Dries were more in the realm of science than politics.

The Wets and Dries Testing Unit forms part of a display on climatic change held at Parliament House by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and opened yesterday by the Minister for Science, Barry Jones.

The display covers climate change and greenhouse-effect research being carried out by the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian National University as well as the Commission for the Future.

Mr Jones encouraged his colleagues to take a hands-on approach to the equipment the better to understand Australia’s field work.

He said that if Australia were to deal effectively with potential problems resulting from the greenhouse effect it would have to work carefully with all international bodies. Australia should also work closely with neighbouring regions such as the Pacific Islands, which faced annihilation if nothing were done.”

Wednesday 30 November 1988 Canberra Times page 22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a few days after Bob Hawke had opened the Science Centre, here was his science Minister Barry Jones trying to get politicians from both Labor and Liberals and Nationals to have “hands-on experience” of climate change at an event in Canberra. In 1988 everyone was running around being concerned about climate (we called it ‘the Greenhouse Effect’ back then), or saying they were. 

What I think we can learn from this

This sort of photo op jamboree serves multiple purposes. You can tell when you organise these things who turns up and who doesn’t, who sends her apologies, who doesn’t bother how engaged they are. Those turning up will want to get their photo in the newspaper, so that they can say to concerned constituents or “Yes, I recently attended X.”

Journalists get cheap/reliable copy. Everyone’s a winner!

What happened next

 The follow-on to the Greenhouse Project didn’t get funded. And so a separate entity Greenhouse Action Australia had to be founded. Jones lost his ministerial seat in factional infighting in 1990. And these sorts of jamborees became less doable after 1990, because it’s old news and because Liberals decided that they didn’t really want to try to capture green votes having failed to do so in 1990. Back to the betrayal, myth, Dolchstoss etc.

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

November 28, 1976 – climate modelling workshop in USA

Forty seven years ago, on this day, November 28, 1976, another climate modelling workshop happens…

The first model of the atmosphere had been developed in 1976. However, models existing up to the mid-1970s remained rudimentary. The workshop was held at the offices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from 28 November to 3 December 1976

Paterson, M (1996) p. 26

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that computer models at this stage were very very rudimentary and expensive. There had been work in the 60s. There’s that paper, I think by Janet Nielsen about the Met Office.

Of course computer modelling had become popular and criticised because of the Limits to Growth report. But by 1976 everyone kind of agreed that the world was going to warm as per the Norwich meeting in 75. And therefore using computers to figure out how much warming by when seemed like a good idea. So there was a workshop at NOAA.

What I think we can learn from this

The mid-1970s was scientists getting hold of the science – via computers and thinking – and saying “uh-oh”

What happened next

Those who knew their arses from their elbows did their best, but the forces of complacency and idiocy (looking at ya, BJ Mason) won the crucial battle at the First World Climate Conference in February 1979. Then came Thatcher and then came Reagan, and another decade was lost  (not that we would have done anything other than piss THAT against the wall…)

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 States of America

November 27, 1956 – New York Times science writer who covered C02 build-up dies.

Sixty seven, on this day, November 27,1956 Waldemar Kaempffert, New York Times science writer dies.

A month earlier, on October 28, the Grey Lady had run this below.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Kaempfert had been a journalist for a long time, and he had done a couple of really good articles in the New York Times about industry warming the world. He was probably good mates with Gilbert Plass. He had written the NYT article about Gilbert Plass’s comments at the AGU in May 1953.

What I think we can learn from this

Smart people were switched on to the threat in the 1950s. It wasn’t rocket science.

What happened next

Walter Sullivan became the chief science writer at The New York Times. Sullivan was heavily involved in reporting on the International Geophysical Year and at that point became aware of the potential problem of climate change from carbon dioxide build-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.

Categories
Antarctica

November 27, 1969 – Canberra Times runs pollution article, mentions melting ice-caps

Fifty four years ago, on this day, November 27, 1969, the Canberra Times ran a piece about pollution….

Paul Backshall of London Reuters with Pollution: Gases in the Atmosphere article, reprinted in Canberra Times Thursday 27 November 1969, page 18 Check out Trove here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was writing articles about air pollution at this point. Someone in Reuters in London had written something of that ilk, and the Canberra Times had syndicated it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that newspapers are hungry beasts and will syndicate things, even if it doesn’t have much of local spin to it, especially if the issue is popular enough.

What happened next

The Canberra Times kept reporting. Everybody was aware of what was at stake. What didn’t happen was that we didn’t stop the party. And now, the hangover…

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 United Kingdom

November 26, 2008 – Climate Change Act becomes law

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 26, 2008, the UK Climate Change Act got royal assent.

The UK now had a Committee on Climate Change, carbon budgets and a reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Act_2008

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the issue of climate had been moving steadily up the political agenda (with climate and energy policy becoming entwined in the period 2000 to 2009). In 2000 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution had recommended a 60% emissions reduction target by 2050. As public agitation (Climate Camp, Campaign Against Climate Change, Transitions Towns etc) got going, the NGO Friends of the Earth led a civil society charge for a Climate Change Bill. Though they shared the credit with the broader “Stop Climate Chaos” coalition, it was really their victory. At this time there was bipartisan support for action, because opposition leader David Cameron had been using environmental issues to detoxify the Tory brand.

What I think we can learn from this

You can have all the bipartisanship you like. It won’t last, and unless you have social movements and civil society monitoring the promises and putting pressure on the decision makers to make it happen, ‘business as usual’ will re-assert itself.

What happened next

David Cameron became Prime Minister, thanks to the connivance of the Liberal Democrats. And then within a couple of years it was ‘cut the green crap’…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong?