Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United Kingdom

November 16, 2021 – Chancellor cuddles up to oil bosses, of course.

Two years ago, on this day, November 16, 2021, a UK politician mouthed the right climate pieties at COP26, then told the oil companies “keep drilling, baby.”

Gosden, E. (2022) Kwarteng courted oil bosses after Cop26; Energy secretary encouraged North Sea drilling. The Times, January 3, p.23 – (Kwarteng schmoozed on Nov 16)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly416ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Glasgow climate COP had happened. Apparently 1.5 was still alive. The British state was happy enough with its performance and now back to business as usual. The Energy and Climate Secretary of State Bay was back to palling around with oil companies and letting them do further drilling in the North Sea.

What I think we can learn from this

that the ink does not need to be dry on some precious “hold hands sing Kumbaya” announcement of climate good intentions before politicians will go back to doing what they do in the interests of capital accumulation and their own post-political career and comfort.

What happened next

Kwasi Kwarteng delivered a mildly consequential mini budget in October of 2022, five minutes before Liz Truss threw him under the bus in a futile effort to save her own skin.

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
Denial United States of America

November 16, 1995 – another skirmish in the IPCC war

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 16, 1995, a denialist douche-bag testilies…

On November 16, 1995, Patrick J. Michaels, an associate professor in the department of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, on issues related to human-induced (or anthropogenic) climate change.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 202

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Michaels and a small band of others had for reasons of their own and (in Michaels case, money and attention), decided to attack and smear climate science and climate scientists. And in 1995 the big effort was to attack the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to anyone who would listen. And they had enough Republican friends, especially in the House of Reps and Senate, to be able to do what the proper scientists were doing, which was create venues for discourse. 

What I think we can learn from this is that “ideal speech communities” can get hijacked and perverted by lying liars. The lying liars could never admit that they were wrong. Too demanding, emotionally.

What happened next

The attacks on the IPCC and in this case, especially Ben Santer continued, but they reached such a high vicious pitch that members of the Global Climate Coalition started to worry about their reputations and started to leave. But it didn’t matter. The denialists had won.

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 15, 1983 – “Energy Futures and Carbon Dioxide” report…

Forty years ago, on this day, November 15, 1983, an MIT and Stanford report comes out… (reported on January 3 1984 by New York Times)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from the late 1970s, the US Department of Energy and others were funding studies of global energy demand and the climate impacts. The lead author of this report, David Rose, had been quoted in The Wall Street Journal article in August 1980 [LINK] as saying, if the build up is real, then this is serious. 

The build-up was real, this was serious. 

The report was finished on this date, and it was reported on in January of the following year by Walter Sullivan, of the New York Times. 

Meanwhile, shortly before this was finished, the EPA and the NAS had had reports out. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a hell of a lot of the serious intellectual work had been done by the early 80s. It was simply a question of getting the politicians on board that took another five years. And as soon as that was achieved, there was an enormous, virulent pushback. 

What happened next

We did not heed the warnings. The Age of Consequences is upon us and the dildo of consequence, 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
United States of America

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

Ten years ago, on this day, November 14, 2013, one of the two senators for Rhode Island, gives his 50th consecutive weekly speech about climate change.

2013 Sheldon Whitehouse and his weekly climate speech http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/time-to-wake-up-weekly-climate-speech

but then, “On November 14, 2013, he gave his 50th weekly Senate speech on climate change. The series of speeches highlight the science of climate change and offer paths for the United States to take strong action.”

(from wikipedia)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had been talking about climate every week. And the broader context is that the United Nations process was slowly grinding back into momentum. In the US, Obama had only tried anything substantive in his first term. And here we are. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there are elected politicians who get it and are willing to do the hard work of alerting people.

What happened next

Whitehouse kept going. He thought he’d quit at 279 speeches, but nope…

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/in-the-news/this-senator-thought-he-had-given-his-279th-and-final-speech-on-climate-change-he-was-wrong

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

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

Forty seven years ago, on this day, November 13, 1975, scientists were busy trying to inform politicians of the coming threats.

Concerning possible effects of air pollution on climate

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment and the Atmosphere of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives,  13-14 November 1975 

And got turned into an article in the Bulletin of the AMS.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by 1975 scientists who studied this stuff were getting more and more alarmed about the build up of CO2. The best way of demonstrating this is the Wally Broecker paper “are we on the cusp of a pronounced global warming.” But it’s one thing for something to appear in a scientific journal like Science, it’s another for politicians to hear it. Of course, US politicians had been hearing this stuff for years, a long time. 20 years really going back to Roger Revelle in the lead-up to the International Geophysical Year

What’s different here is there’s more certainty, more science, and the build-up of co2 has continued. 

What I think we can learn from this

It takes a very very long time for a new idea/problem to become an issue. There is enormous inertia in people’s heads, in our (political) cultures.

What happened next

An attempt to get legislation through failed.  There was soon a second push for a climate act with George Brown and others. It worked.

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

November 13, 1963 –  Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

On this day, 60 years ago, November 13, 1963, the peace campaigner, journalist and science communicator (including as first editor of New Scientist)  Ritchie Calder gave a clear warning about the build-up of carbon dioxide, at a meeting of the Town and Country Planning Association  in London.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures

The context was that Ritchie-Calder had been aware of the issue – at the latest – by early 1954, when he wrote about the issue for a national newspaper. By 1963, the first meeting entirely devoted to carbon dioxide build-up had already taken place in Washington DC. Calder was almost certainly aware of this…

What we can learn.  

We knew. We knew. We knew.

What happened next

Five years and two weeks later, Ritchie-Calder again referenced carbon dioxide build-up, in his “Hell on Earth” Presidential Address to the Conservation Society.

Seriously, long before Stockholm, long before Thatcher, we knew…

Categories
Australia

November 12, 2012 – Greenpeace smeared by Queensland extractors, of course

Eleven years ago, on this day, November 12, 2012, the Queensland Resources Council got their retaliation in first…

Greenpeace hysteria threatens communities

Nov 12 2012

An internationally-funded campaign to shut down Queensland’s export coal industry was relying on exaggeration and misrepresentation in a bid to undermine regional communities, the Queensland Resources Council (QRC) told a conference in Brisbane today.

https://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=3185

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Queensland Resources Council members knew that there was lots of money to be made in digging up and exporting stuff. And they didn’t like Greenpeace getting between them and their profits. And rather than argue the facts or talk about what the economy of the 21st century would need to be they decided – inevitably – to smear Greenpeace and use the lovely code word “hysterical,” which is always very gendered. Men don’t get called hysterical or possibly only homosexual men. And what they’re trying to do here is say that extractivism is man’s work. 

What I think we can learn from this

The gender aspect of this stuff (framing opponents as ‘hysterical) is worth considering (Cara Daggett etc).

What happened next

The attacks on environmentalists continued and escalated. Even WWF was in the firing line soon enough. And of course, the Queensland Government sat there and facilitated evermore mining. Of course it did. 

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

Spot the difference – Penny Wong and Scott Morrison

(as per Private Eye letters page ritual)

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

November 11, 1963 – “Is man upsetting the weather?”

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 11, 1963, the magazine US News and World Report runs a story on weather and climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the 1950s concern about weather and weather change has grown. The US had started seriously spending money on weather modification experiments..

In 1963, in March in New York, the Conservation Foundation had held a one day meeting about carbon dioxide build up and its possible consequences. So the changes in the atmosphere, the weather, these were all grist for journalists ’mill. And you could quickly cobble together a new story based on old clippings, and maybe phoning up a couple of scientists who would be happy to be quoted, because as long as you’ve got the quote right, it would make them feel important. And keep their names in the papers. Universities would be mostly happy about this. And so the weekly ravening beast that was US News and World Report continued to be fed. Am I too cynical?

What I think we can learn from this

To really understand an individual document, you have to understand the social and political context of when it was written. This is a banal statement, but one that periodically needs repeating.

What happened next

The stories kept coming. By the late 60s carbon dioxide got named a lot more. But everything still got framed around. “We don’t know what will happen because maybe dust.” That didn’t begin to change until the late 1970s.

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

November 10, 1995 – Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni executed

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 10, 1995, nine men, including the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa were executed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Nigeria was a brutal dictatorship with local warlords making loads a money. Ogoni were getting screwed.

The military dictatorship in Nigeria had decided to execute a bunch of Ogoni leaders who were protesting against the despoilation and the extractivism that had been going on for decades as funded by what has perpetrated by outfits like our friends at Shell who were having a rough time of it in the second half of the 1990s. 

What I think we can learn from this

That the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

What happened next

Nigeria stopped being an official actual military dictatorship. The shituation for the Ogoni is not hugely 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.

References

  • Canadian author J. Timothy Hunt‘s The Politics of Bones (September 2005), published shortly before the 10th anniversary of Saro-Wiwa’s execution, documented the flight of Saro-Wiwa’s brother Owens Wiwa, after his brother’s execution and his own imminent arrest, to London and then on to Canada, where he is now a citizen and continues his brother’s fight on behalf of the Ogoni people. Moreover, it is also the story of Owens’ personal battle against the Nigerian government to locate his brother’s remains after they were buried in an unmarked mass-grave.[93]
  • Ogoni’s Agonies: Ken Saro Wiwa and the Crisis in Nigeria (1998), edited by Abdul Rasheed Naʾallah, provides more information on the struggles of the Ogoni people[94]
  • Onookome Okome’s book, Before I Am Hanged: Ken Saro-Wiwa—Literature, Politics, and Dissent (1999)[95] is a collection of essays about Wiwa
  • In the Shadow of a Saint: A Son’s Journey to Understanding His Father’s Legacy (2000), was written by his son Ken Wiwa.
  • Saro-Wiwa’s own diary, A Month and a Day: A Detention Diary, was published in January 1995, two months after his execution.
  • In Looking for Transwonderland – Travels in Nigeria, his daughter Noo Saro-Wiwa tells the story of her return to Nigeria years after her father’s murder.