Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 26, 1988, the Australian Financial Review reported on what “the greenhouse effect” might do to the energy mix (it didn’t).

Environmental problems associated with the “greenhouse effect” could force the world to replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy – which would give Australia the opportunity to become the foremost uranium supplier, according to a leading petroleum industry expert.

Mr Bob Foster, general manager, external relations, for BHP Petroleum said last week: “Australia can lead the world on how to mitigate against the greenhouse effect.”

Sargent, S. 1988. Environment problems seen with fossil fuels. Australian Financial Review, 26 July.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone had started to talk about climate change. And the biggest Australian miner BHP was able to see dollar signs because it had lots of uranium and could envisage a turn to nuclear. The deeper context is that from the 1950s and 60s onwards, advocates of nuclear had been talking about it as a greenhouse solution. See, for example, Philip Abelson in 1968, New York Times 1969 Thatcher 1979 for a very small selection

What I think we can learn from this is that proponents of the nuclear dream (or nightmare, depending on your perspective) have been using all the arguments that they can for a long, long time. 

What happened next

Nuclear power did not save the world. Nuclear power was never going to save the world,

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
Japan United Kingdom United States of America

July 26, 1967 – Allen Ginsberg tells Gary Snyder it’s “a general lemming situation”

On this day, Allen Ginsberg wrote to his friend Gary Snyder, about what he’d heard at the ‘Dialectics of Liberation’ conference, from Gregory Bateson.

Ginsberg’s letter of 26 July 1967, sent from New York to Kyoto where Snyder was then living, in which he notes, in a telegraphic style the poets sometimes used in their correspondence:

 Now International Dialectics of Liberation—[Stokely] Carmichael angry and yelling, I stayed calm and kept chanting prajnaparamita. Gregory Bateson says auto CO2 layer gives planet half-life: 10-30 years before 5 degree temp rise irreversible melt polar ice caps, 400 feet water inundate everything below Grass Valley 58—to say nothing of young pines in Canada dying radiation—death of rivers—general lemming situation. (Ginsberg in Morgan, 2008, p. 418)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bateson had been reading Barry Commoner’s “Science and Survival” published the previous year.  The book was extremely influential in its own way, and helped get people switched on to the carbon threat.

What I think we can learn from this is that about the carbon dioxide build up,there was ‘common knowledge’ from earlier than folks realise…

What happened next

Ginsberg was on TV in September, and gave one of the first warnings about the greenhouse effect.

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

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 25, 1996, then-new Prime Minister John Howard was correctly identified as a muppet. Sorry, puppet.

The Howard Government has refused to endorse Labor’s program to support research into renewable ethanol fuel, drawing sharp criticism from industry and the Australian Democrats.

At a meeting with ethanol industry representatives yesterday, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Warwick Parer, refused to guarantee continuing commitment to a bounty scheme and a pilot plant which were funded by the former Labor Government to encourage cost-effective production of the alternative fuel.

Martin, C. 1996. Howard a ‘fossil fuel puppet’, Australian Financial Review, 26 July, p. 16.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard has not been Australian Prime Minister long (March of 1996). But it’s pretty obvious that whatever lingering hopes, environmentalists and producers of ”environmentally friendly fuel” ethanol were not going to get much love. And their low expectations were met.

What I think we can learn from this is that a new government whether it has a different ideology or a leader with different priorities can suddenly not be returning the calls of various actors, be they entrepreneurs or social movement organisations or whatever. And windows of opportunity, both for the social and technological innovations can close really rapidly. And of course, everyone knows that, which is why you get such desperation about any given election because opportunities for either necessary research and development or sucking on the public tit, (depending on your perspective) will be curtailed. And so it came to pass in this case. 

What happened next

Howard ruled Australia for 11 years. He did everything he could to squash renewables with some success. Well, certainly delay. 

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

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

 On July 24, 1980, President Carter addressed the public about his signature achievement. 

“Never before had our government or any other government attempting to take such a comprehensive, long-range look at interrelated global issues . . . I believe America must provide special leadership in addressing global conditions,” he urged 

(Source – Henderson thesis)

The context was that the concerns raised about “The Limits to Growth” hadn’t gone away entirely, but morphed. By the mid-1970s, they’d been able to gain a toe-hold in the US science policy-making bureaucracies, and in 1977 Carter had announced that a report would be produced…

What we can learn

Any attempt to get environmental limits onto the agenda will be met with fierce resistance.

What happened next

The Global2000 people tried to keep the momentum going, even after Reagan’s victory. The Heritage Foundation did everything it could to slow that momentum, with considerable success.  And here we are.

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

July 23, 1998 – denialists stopping climate action. Again.

Twenty five years ago, on this day, July 23, 1998, the Global Climate Coalition (industry front group set up to stop any real climate action) is busy quote mining and distorting what people have said, to give the impression of doubt, confusion etc.  Age-old tactic, that keeps working, again and again.

 http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1998-kyoto-epa-implementation-selected-quotes/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that although the US  Senate had passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution, there was still the lingering threat that a new US administration might if not actually agree to the Kyoto Protocol, then at least take international action that the Global Climate Coalition didn’t like. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the Global Climate Coalition and similar outfits, just keep on keeping on grinding away. Whether they’re winning or losing, they keep grinding away in the kind of war of attrition against sanity. And they can do that because they’re well-funded.

What happened next

The Global Climate Coalition was able to shut up shop in 2002. There were two factors. One is they had lost some of their big public-facing companies, especially automakers, because denying the existence of climate change was becoming a reputational risk. And separately, they’d won: once Bush said the US was not going to go negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The big big battle that had been their raison d’etre since their foundation in 1989 was 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
Cultural responses United States of America

July 23, 1987 – Calvin (and Hobbes) versus climate change!

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 23, 1987,  Calvin blames his mother, and her generation…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bill Watterson is a stone cold genius. The cartoon says so much about youthful exuberance and the joys of pointing the finger.

By 1987, yeah, lots of people knew already. You didn’t need to be a particular genius to understand that climate change was coming.

What I think we can learn from this is that proper humour about climate change is really hard to do. Some have managed it.

What happened next

Calvin & Hobbes kept publishing for a few more years but then went out on a high very sensibly. Showbusiness adage about leave them wanting more 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
Australia Netherlands Uncategorized

July 22, 1991 – two #climate idiots on the Science Show

Thirty two years ago, on this day, July 22, 1991, the Australian radio program “The Science Show” (ABC Radio) had two climate denialists on. Oh joy.

(See Robyn Williams letter to The Australian, 1991, Dec 6, p.10).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Science Show had from its very beginnings been aware of the dangers of climate change. So Ritchie Caleer, who had been writing about the problem emphatically since the late 60s (and had been aware of it since the early 1950s), was a guest in 1975 on the first episode.

In 1991, the politics of it national of climate, internationally and nationally were getting hot. The negotiations for a climate treaty to be signed in June of 92 were going nowhere thanks to the resolute intransigence and blocking of the United States administration. 

Meanwhile, in Australia, the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process was reaching its final stages, drafts were being written ahead of release within a couple of months. I don’t know if the Science Show had pro-climate action guests the week before the week after. But on this occasion, they had two idiots. One was Bill Nirenberg, one of the Jasons who you can read about in Merchants of Doubt. He had helped to write the 1983 NAS “changing climate” report, saying, “Oh, it’ll be long term and there’s nothing we can do anyway.” The other guest was Brian O’Brien, one of the more active climate deniers on the Australian scene. He was able to play on the fact that he had been the scientist for NASA, as if this somehow gave him expertise on climate science. O’Brian had written various screeds about climate policy, especially attacking the “Toronto Target”.

What I think we can learn from this is that even the best media has to allow dodgy people on because if you don’t, it is “censorship”. And especially 31 years ago, there was still need to “hear both sides of the argument.” And to be fair, I don’t know how Robyn Williams dealt with that at the time, maybe he did a very good job of sending a public health warning to listeners. 

What happened next

The ecologically sustainable development process was killed off by new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating and his henchmen within the Australian Federal bureaucracy. The Rio Earth Summit, rubberstamped a piss-weak climate treaty, i.e. the Americans won. And in long term, everybody lost. 

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
Italy State Violence

July 21, 2001 – Sleeping protestors beaten by Italian Police

Twenty two years ago, on this day, July 21, 2001, sleeping protestors were beaten by police in Genoa, Italy.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the misnamed “anti-globalisation” movement had been mobilising in London and Cologne, in Stockholm, and in Prague. And now everyone was gathered in Genoa for the G7. Italian police had already shot and killed a young Italian man who was – to be fair – attacking a police car with a fire extinguisher. But this attack was not on protesters, was not in the heat of the moment, these police were not then under threat. This was a planned and enjoyed assault with blood halfway out the walls, leaving lots of nonviolent protesters traumatised with medical bills and horror and it should be remembered. But it isn’t. Except by the people who endured it. 

What I think we can learn from this

The state will use violence as it did with the Rainbow Warrior. And as it did here, to make people bleed and make people remember.   

What happened next

The Italian police eventually went on trial. Nothing came of it. The global movement against corporate control of the planet was stopped in its tracks by the shock of 9-11. It then morphed into a movement against the impending attack on Iraq in 2003. But  found it hard to sustain – as you do. 

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

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed

Nine years ago, on this day, July 20, 2014, former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson blames sacking on “the Green Blob” – https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/20/owen-paterson-sacked-cabinet-appease-green-lobby

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Cameron, perhaps bruised by his “get rid of the green crap” comments getting reported in late 2013,  and needing a scapegoat, had sacked Owen Paterson (there’s only so many bullets that a flak jacket can take before you need a new one.)

What I think we can learn from this is that nothing is ever your fault if you’re an old white entitled man. His genius has simply been disrespected by a bunch of lunatics. And communists. 

What happened next

Cameron’s government continued to “cut the green crap.” And, for example, got rid of the house buildings zero carbon targets, made life incredibly difficult for onshore wind, supported tracking and nuclear etc. And Owen Patterson? He was ultimately really the beginning of the end for his political ally Boris Johnson. He was suspended from Parliament for breaching lobbying rules (but of course this must have been the fault of the green blob). Johnson’s attempt to defend Patterson caused significant unease and undermined what the little residual political capital Johnson had so that when shit went south he had far fewer friends, and ended up having to resign. 

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
Sweden United Nations

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 19, 1968, a Swedish diplomat pointed to the problems ahead.

Demonstrating the cutting-edge nature of the science that underpinned Sweden’s diplomatic intervention, environmental issues that emerged more prominently in the 1970s were foreshadowed by Palmstierna and Åström, including acid rain, eutrophication and climate change. Regarding the latter, for example, Åström stated before ECOSOC on July 19, 1968, “that man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable”. 

Paglia “Swedish Initiative”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that global awareness of major environmental problems, including our favourite – population – and water and air pollution get as far as the United Nations because it’s Swedish initiatives. And this was apparently the first time that ECOSOC talks about what we would now call “anthropogenic global warming.

What I think we can learn from this

The UN has been talking about, well, people have been talking at the UN about the dangers of climate change for 55 years. Let me say that again. People have been talking at the UN about the dangers of climate change for 55 years.

What happened next

ECOSOC, to which Astrom was talking, agreed to put forward a resolution, the United Nations General Assembly about holding a big environment conference. That UN General Assembly rubber stamp took place in December 1968 (the UK had tried to stop this, but realised it would be futile, so decided to roll with the punches).. And the big conference (with very little high level participation from the Second and Third World)  finally took place in June of 1972. It didn’t really give us very much about climate, but maybe I think you could argue that the science wasn’t yet mature. It gave a bit of a fillip to the World Meteorological Organisation and there was now a venue, the United Nations Environment Programme for further work, so all was not lost. And as I said, it’s really only the late 1970s that you could start to blame anyone for 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.