Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

August 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 24, 1989, Sydney councillors start to take note of citizen ideas for tackling “the greenhouse effect”. And use it to put the spotlight on the feds.

A concerned citizen’s letter has prompted Leichhardt Council to send three submissions to a Senate committee inquiring into ways of reducing the impact of the greenhouse effect.

The submissions, from Alderman Issy Wyner, as chairman of the council’s environment pollution control panel, Dr Ken Sullivan, president of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand, and Mr John Mara, council’s deputy chief health and building surveyor, were posted on Friday.

Mr N. G. Hyde, of Kingsgrove, had written to Leichhardt Council, expressing his concern about the greenhouse effect and depletion of the ozone layer.

“He probably wrote to every council but it stimulated a response from us,”Mr Mara said.

“We kept the matter on the agenda by writing to the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Richardson, and his NSW counterpart, Mr Moore, for advice, and picking up information from newspapers and journals.”

Bilic, J. 1989. Council officers greenhouse tips. Sydney Morning Herald, 24 August. 

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 everyone was running around with urgency and ideas for dealing with what was then called the greenhouse effect. People who understood it knew that early action was not only preferable but necessary because once it has got out of hand it wouldn’t just be “too expensive to do anything about” but “impossible ti do anything about.”

This was at a federal state and local level in Australia. (Of course we had had the Brundtland Report by now, which emphasised the importance of local action).

What I think we can learn from this is that all the rhetoric about responsive government, citizen engagement citizen participation have been with us for generations. And on whole, in most places, it has not taken. And even in the places where it has taken it needs persistent consistent effort because the culture of atomization of neoliberalization of techno-salvationism is very very strong.

What happened next – they gave us the language of Local Agenda 21, but local councils went back to doing what they do best – being secretive, flogging off state assets including publicly-owned land to developers in exchange for brown envelopes and acting as a career launch pad and finishing academy for ambitious young politicians wanting to be an MP, and general “snout in the trough” opportunities for others

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

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

Fifty two years ago, on this day, August 23, 1971, a blueprint for survival (of corporate capitalism) was sent, written by a guy who then got appointed to the Supreme Court by Tricky Dick Nixon.

1971 Powell Memorandum – https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American elites were becoming more and more worried  about the upsurge in citizen action after the quiescent 1950s. By 1971 it wasn’t just the blacks demanding theri civil rights, it was latinos, women, homosexuals, anti-war protesters, environment protesters, you name it. And and the so-called “crisis of democracy” (to use the term from the Trilateral Commission) was becoming a real thing, a real threat. The Powell memorandum is a nice clear summation of how to fight back…

What I think we can learn from this is  that the counter-assault has been quite  successful against the democratisation of society. And the state is not without its strategists, who are able to be clear about what is required and how to get it.

The Powell memorandum makes for interesting, important reading. And if we lived in a democracy it would be taught in schools – that this is what happened, But the very existence of the Powell memorandum shows you that that wouldn’t exist; it’s like the Lewis law and feminism 

The Australian equivalent would be people like Geoff Allen, who set up the Business Council of Australia – but the foundations in Australia are less deep pocketed, there isn’t quite that same mentality.

What happened next

The Powell memorandum became the how-to manual for the American foundations. You have things springing up like the Heritage Foundation in 1973, which has been incredibly influential.

Powell then went on to be a supreme court Justice put in place by Nixon which tells you everything you need to know. 

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

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

One hundred and eighty years ago, on this day, August 23, 1853, scientists from around the world got together in Belgium to hash out some standardised approaches to measuring things.

Enduring cooperation began with the First International Meteorological Conference, held on 23 August 1853 in Brussels. This conference standardised meteorological observations to be taken from ships, by establishing a set of instructions for how to take measurements, and a standard form for recording them. It was organised at the initiative of a naval officer, Lieutenant MF Maury of the United States Navy.

Paterson, M (1996) page 18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meteorological_Organization#:~:text=Matthew%20Fontaine%20Maury%2C%20of%20the,the%20Minister%20of%20the%20Interior.

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

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 with the coming of the telegraph, and thus international communication and collaboration in collecting measurements became much easier in real time. But then this raises the question of who is using which measures at which time so that you can have a decent database of comparable/accurate info.

What I think we can learn from this is that the nitty gritty work of doing science of measuring things and thinking about causal relations requires good data which requires cooperation and we’ve been doing that successfully for a long time 170 years.

What happened next

The 19th century saw the ongoing assault on nature, the colonisation of Africa (“colonisation” is one nice word – attack, hyper-extraction would do), the development of new Industries (especially chemistry), the coming of electricity, the industrialisation of Europe, and chunks of of the United States. that’s quite some century and in the short-term, on climate science, a few years later you’ve got Eunice Foote and a few years after that John Tyndall…

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

Zilman, J. 2018.

Categories
Australia

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

Fifty two years ago, on this day, August 23, 1971, recently retired Australian civil servant Nugget Coombs delivered a lecture on “ecological and economic realities” at 12th Pacific Conference, Canberra.

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 everyone was running around talking about ecological damage and – as the phrase would come out next year – “the Limits to Growth.” So you have what sounds, even today, as quite radical perspectives. 

The other context is Nugget Coombs had been a very important influential even famous civil servants in Australia. He was recently retired and was able therefore to talk more freely. This paper sets out clearly what was stake.

What I think we can learn from this

 That the language around non growth economy meeting human needs ecological limits. all of this has been around forever well 50 years.

What happened next

Coombs kept active and was still alive 20 years later when the next big wave of “Environmental Concern” came around.

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 Pricing

August 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Twelve years ago, on this day, August 22, 2011 , another anti-”carbon tax” rally flops

Come 22 August [2011], the event is a screaming flop. Three hundred people gather on the lawns outside Parliament House, and a ragtag of trucks circle it blowing their horns. Jones, alongside his mate Tony Abbott, addresses the crowd who all holler and howl and demand Gillard’s head over the carbon pricing scheme. Perhaps aware of what a dud he’s partly responsible for, Jones sensationally accuses the ACT Police of stopping ‘thousands’ from attending the rally and blocking ‘hundreds of trucks’ at the ACT border – as he describes it, ‘the most disgraceful thing to happen to our democracy.’

(Walsh, 2013:54-5) The Stalking of Julia Gillard      

An angry crowd of about 300 people gathered on the Australian Parliament lawns as 200 vehicles from all over the country rolled around Canberra blowing their horns, for what protesters called the convoy of no confidence.      Cummings, T. 2011. When things turned ugly. ABC News, 23 August.

There was an ugly confrontation in Canberra yesterday, one that could potentially have been very nasty indeed.

It had nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the Convoy of No Confidence that rolled into our nation’s capital, nothing to do with the carbon tax, or live exports, or any of that.

and

I wonder whether the Convoy of No Confidence will be an unexpected pivot point in Australian politics.

Carpenter, N. 2011. Convoy Contempt could be of some consequence. The Drum, 29 August. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-29/carpenter-convoy-contempt-could-be-of-some-consequence/2860718

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first half of 2011 had been totally dominated by the question of an emissions trading scheme. Tony Abbott had made all sorts of outlandish claims about the cost and risk there had been marches and protests, most notoriously on March 23rd in Canberra. This was an attempt to show enormous opposition. But I think many people were tired and bored and realised that by now they had lost, and that Gillard was going to be successful in getting the legislation through.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is not just left wing progressive protest groups who are prone to burnout and exhaustion. There is an emotacycle collapsing also for those who are trying to stand in the way of climate action, who  are also prone to burnout and exhausting themselves.

What happened next 

Julia Gillard’s legislation did indeed get through. The scheme started on the 1st of July 2012 and was then abolished by the next government headed by Tony Abbott. Emissions started climbing again. (There is some argument that the perceived success of the emissions trading scheme was down to more hydro from Tasmania in the national electricity grid at the time).

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/further reading

 Willingham, R. 2011. Convoy of no confidence runs short on revs. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August 2011.

Categories
Australia

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

Twenty three years ago, on this day, August 22, 2000, the first effort at getting an emissions trading scheme for Australia died a death, killed off by climate denier Nick Minchin.

22 August 2000. Cabinet meeting at which Minchin beats Hill on a domestic emissions trading scheme. (See Crabbe, 23 Aug Advertiser etc)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been lots of talk about emissions trading in the previous two or 3 years both at a national and especially New South Wales level because it seemed Australia might ratify the Kyoto Protocol. And if it did it would want to have its own emission trading scheme and perhaps make lots of money from growing trees. The best laid plans had not really come to fruition, and this was the first body blow – the rejection of a national emissions trading scheme.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have spent a veeery long time coming up with all sorts of visions and schemes rather than reducing our emissions in a safe and fair way by changing behaviours and incentives for energy efficiency etc.

What happened next

John Howard, to no-one’s surprise ruled out Kyoto ratification in 2002. In 2003 the idea of emissions trading scheme came back to cabinet and this time Cabinet was united in favour but Howard vetoed it LINK.

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
Energy United Nations

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference.

Sixty two years ago, on this day, August 21, 1961, a United Nations conference on new sources of energy began.

21-31 August 1961 UN conference on new sources of energy (see Ritchie-Calder, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dec 1961) 

Also his comments on 1975 30 August Science show. (interviewed by Robyn Williams)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that new sources of energy especially for countries without their own supplies of oil, coal and gas were going to be needed if the world were going to “develop”. There was also the point that fossil fuel supplies were not going to last forever. Climate change was not an issue, at least not one that was publicly discussed and I doubt it got much traction anywhere, because the science was simply not mature enough or well enough known.

What I think we can learn from this is that questions about energy justice have been around for a very long time and we never quite manage to crack it, really.

What happened next, by 1968 environmental problems were obvious enough that Sweden was successful in getting the UN to agree to hold a conference. And one of the topics was what we now call “climate change.”

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

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3833582?ln=en

Categories
Activism

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Five years ago, on this day, August 20, 2018, Greta Thunberg did her first school strike.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 408ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Greta Thunberg was the daughter of a famous Swedish opera singer and her very supportive dad. She had been in severe emotional mental distress because of climate change, not eating/agoraphobic etc. You can read about it in her book and I recommend you do.

It was a simple straightforward protest that has become mythology-sized and some people want to believe that she is the pawn of a globalist movement and everything is mediated and manipulated. And they find “proof” of this, to their own satisfaction. And on and on we go.

What I think we can learn from this is that the media latch on to to young people and ‘odd’ “people as the “stars” of a movement…

 Greta is very smart and very very funny.

What happened next

The climate movement went up like a rocket and has come down like a stick because it doesn’t know how to do anything other than marches and rallies and sleepovers.

There’s an impressive amount of Just Stop Oil action, but the broader movement doesn’t have a granular capacity… Oh well, too late now anyway.

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

August 19, 1968 – Is Man Spoiling the Weather? (yes)

Fifty five years ago, on this day, August 19, 1968, a major US news magazine asks the right question…

August 19 1968. “Is Man Spoiling the Weather? What the Experts Say,” U.S. News and World Report, August 19, 1968, p. 61.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that further work by US scientists was beginning to look more closely at carbon dioxide. There have been reports by the National Academy of Science and the beginnings of more confident minority statements. But this time and even much later the article was still, understandably, couched in a “will we die in fire or will we die in ice?” kind of thing. 

What I think we can learn from this nothing much except that the media was talking about this for a long time.

What happened next

 1970 is the year that you really start to say carbon dioxide is emerging as a prominent member of the various threats that people are putting forward as long-term problems.

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 United Kingdom

 August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

Forty eight years ago, on this day, August 18, 1975, a bunch of people who had been thinking about man’s impact on the climate for quite a while get together in Norwich, England, for a meeting about what’s coming. They decide that there’s no ice age on its way but there IS a decent chance of a large amount of warming…

1975  18-23 August 1975 Norwich meeting which ended speculation about possible cooling.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/the_great_global_cooling_myth.html

Paterson 1996 is good on this…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was interested in the weather – was it getting colder? was it getting warmer? There had been public pronouncement in both directions including, infamously, the 1971 Rasool and Schneider paper. The popular version of this was The Weather Machine by Nigel Calder which became a BBC documentary. And there were questions asked in the House of Commons. 

But the people who actually studied the climate issue were looking closely at carbon dioxide and by now beginning to think this is the issue – we’re going to get warming not a cooling. Wally Broeker’s paper in Science had just been published a month earlier and the National Academy of Science had started its 2-year study on understanding climate.

What I think we can learn from this is that although doubt continued in public because bad ideas and stories have a long half-life this workshop was the moment at which any lingering doubts about the cooling were put to one side, at least in the minds of people who knew what they were talking about.

What happened next was that by 1976 the World Meteorological Organisation was making statements about the likelihood of warming. It was also a very very hot summer in Europe and especially the United Kingdom the 1976 drought which was until 1995 rather the hottest for years. And 2022 was much hotter globally.

But we get used to anything – until we can’t…

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.