Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Chile

September 11, 1973 – CIA coup topples Chilean democracy

Fifty years ago, on this day, September 11, 1973, the planes started bombing the Parliament, the troops started shooting, and the elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, was killed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Allende had been in the rifle sites for a while. “Make the economy scream”, Nixon had said. Meanwhile, various theorists of technology were trying to figure out how you could have the advantages of automation computers feedback loops without creating a dictatorship of the higher order. So how could technology be used to make smarter more democratic decisions? One of the people thinking in these terms was Stafford Beer who was trying to get a program around this going in in Chile. Would it have worked? Almost certainly not. But it would have been nice to learn from the failures and try again and again until there were ways it could succeed? Yes.

What I think we can learn from this is that in general socialist democracy scared the s*** out of Nixon, Kissinger ITT etc. The threat of a good example and all that… And it reminds me of that anecdote from Carl Rogers about the experimental factory where profits remain high but managers realise they would have to give up a lot of their power and they don’t want to.

What happened next is that Pinochet ruled until 1990. He made the mistake of holding a referendum, believing he was popular… He was then pursued legally and and of course the Blair government was never going to let him be extradited to Spain because they were doing what the Americans wanted. Pinochet would have blown the gaff and put the spotlight on Nixon who by this time was dead but also on Kissinger who was still very much alive. There would have been teachable moments about  the CIA and its behaviour. 

Stafford Beer, well he died in 2002. Cybersyn never took off.

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

See also https://www.academia.edu/23198933/A_critique_of_pure_cybernetic_reason_the_Chilean_experience_with_cybernetics

Categories
Japan Ozone

September 10, 1973- Ozone concerns on display in Kyoto…

Fifty years ago, on this day, September 10, 1973 

During the early 1970s, the space shuttle was being developed by NASA in the United States. The first significant elaboration of the chlorine-ozone layer hypothesis was offered at a scientific gathering in Kyoto, Japan on 10,11 and 12 September 1973, when Richard Stolarski and Ralph Cicerone, both from the University of Michigan, presented the findings from their research.

(Rowlands,1995: 48 [Cicerone in 2001 was head of NAS, when Dubya Bush asked for review of IPCC]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that while the question of Ozone depletion caused by SSTs (supersonic transports) such as Concorde had already been a “hot” scientific and political issue it was going to be less of one with the shuttle because by definition they were not going to be many of them. But it was part of the general upsurge of awareness about global atmospheric consequences of human activity and Kyoto, well… 26 years later Kyoto would be by the first test of the climate treaty.

What I think we can learn from this stuff has a long history. I don’t particularly rate this blog post though so rough cicerone pops up elsewhere you could make something about that.

What happened next

The shuttle programme finally got underway officially in 1981 but two shuttles were lost which is about in line with what you’d expect given how is all put together and designed. Was it worth the Enormous cost to put some clowns in on the moon as it were is there really a good case for humans in space it’s not at all clear to me that it’s worth it.

Rowland and Molina were doing their thing – 

By December [1973], Rowland and Molina had completed their calculations, and in June 1974 their paper was published in Nature. The results of their research were startling, but as Rowland recalled afterward, “There was no moment when I yelled ‘Eureka!’ I just came home one night and told my wife, ‘The work is going every well, but it looks like the end of the world.’”

(Oppenheimer & Boyle, 1990: 44) 

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 Coal United Kingdom

September 10, 2008 – Greenpeace Kingsnorth protesters acquitted

Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 10, 2008, Greenpeace who had occupied the Kingsnorth power station were acquitted – a jury found them not guilty.

It’s been a pretty unusual ten days but today has been truly extraordinary. At 3.20pm, the jury came back into court and announced a majority verdict of not guilty! All six defendants – Kevin, Emily, Tim, Will, Ben and Huw – were acquitted of criminal damage.

To recap on how important this verdict is: thedefendantscampaigners were accused of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to Kingsnorth smokestack from painting. The defence was that they had ‘lawful excuse’ – because they were acting to protect property around the world “in immediate need of protection” from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/kingsnorth-trial-breaking-news-verdict-20080910

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace activists had been pushing against coal with so-called “CCS ready” status. Climate campers had camped out first at Drax power station in 2006 and then at Kingsnorth in 2008. Just before this acquittal more broadly the Brown government was trying to to get carbon capture and storage technology going partly in order to save the world.

What I think we can learn from this is that for successful social acceptance of new technology you’re probably going to need environmentalists on board. But it’s not clear to me that they will ever be particular fans of CCS.

What happened next

 The first CCS competition kind of fizzled out in 2011 the second one was abruptly plug pulled in 2015 and then there was a massive work of re sanctifying CCS in 2016/17/18.

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
Arctic United States of America

September 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

Seventy six years ago, on this day, September 9, 1947, the communist paper the Daily Worker e takes a look at what is going on.

Daily Worker 9 Sept 1947 LONG BEFORE THE A-BOMB fell scientists talked and wrote about the possible use of nuclear energy. They envisioned steamboats crossing the Atlantic, powered by the atomic energy from a spoonful of water. They discussed ways of melting the polar ice-caps and changing world climate. They wrote of creating new lakes for irrigating and fructifying the deserts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in the aftermath of World War II, which had been ended with a couple of nuclear bombs – the second of which was most definitely gratuitous (as was the final air raid on Tokyo) the dreams of power beyond imagining were real or looked like they could be realised. The daily worker communist newspaper reminds us that shaping the planet to meet human needs and once the Promethean dream seemed to be within reach.

What I think we can learn from this is that humans have dreamt of changing the planet advertently and with forethought but what we have ended up with instead is inadvertent weather and climate modification as per the warnings of Captain Orville in 1957-58. 

What happened next

In 1953 Gilbert Plass gave his warning about 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
Activism United States of America

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.

Nine years ago, on this day, September 8, 2014, some activists had their charges dropped.

2014 Bristol County DA Sam Sutter drops charges against the lobster boat blockade folks

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014/09/08/district-attorney-lessens-charges-lobster-boat-blockade-trial/

Press Release: All Criminal Charges Dropped!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was a campaign of nonviolent direct action and resistance had culminated in this.

What I think we can learn from this is that campaigns of non-violent direct action but do not always lead to a victory with changes in the law or the ways that the law is is enforced but direct action in and of itself only a tactical set of behaviours but may also have deeper moral or political implications and consequences. But there’s also the question of just getting s*** done

What happened next I don’t know.  I should see if the lobster people won – in the long-term or were they shat upon?

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 Nuclear Power

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 7, 2005, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Greens call on the gov to rule out nuclear energy and release a report “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Howard government had asked a pro-nuclear scientist to do a review of nuclear power. This was after Howard and Bush had had one of their periodic meetings. The review made the same point that nuclear power was not going to be economic for Australia, and take too long to develop.

But it was also a useful “dead cat” strategy for Howard because he could wedge greens – he knew that some of them are pronuclear. Further, he knew it will take up time, energy and bandwidth and therefore distract from what he was (not) doing on climate.

But this is tricksy, and eventually the magician plays the same trick so many times that people spot how he does it and stop being impressed or even amused. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this is that nuclear is always a good “go to” if you want to avoid talking about what needs doing in the here and right now. And allow you to keep doing what you’re doing.

What happened next

Nuclear was not developed. It will not be developed in Australia because the population is not big enough and there aren’t enough big electricity consumers and anyway everyone has got wind and solar and the nuclear boat has sailed (and I don’t think the nuclear submarines will sail either. But who knows.)

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

September 6, 2007 – “The Future of Coal under Cap and Trade” hearings…

Sixteen years ago, on this day, September 6, 2007, some American congressmen hold a hearing about what might be done…

2007 “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing

As Congress turns its eye toward global warming legislation this fall, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will host Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, the CEO of American Electric Power, and other experts for a hearing exploring how to maintain coal as part of the energy mix for America and the world, while avoiding dangerous global warming. Chairman Markey and the rest of the Select Committee will learn about advanced coal technologies like carbon capture and storage, and how a framework for cutting emissions could affect the development and deployment of this technology and the future of coal-fired power plants.

WHAT: “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing

WHERE: 2172 Rayburn House Office Building and on the web at globalwarming.house.gov

WHEN: Sept 6, 2007, 9:30 AM

WHO:

Governor Dave Freudenthal, Wyoming

Michael Morris, Chairman and CEO, American Electric Power

Carl Bauer, Director, Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory

David Hawkins, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center

Robert Sussman, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP

Stuart Dalton, Director for the Generation Sector, Electric Power Research Institute

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 European Union had started an Emissions Trading Scheme. There was a regional scheme in the United States with if I recall rightly seven or eight north-eastern states and the idea and expectation was that whoever became President in 2008 there would be space for a national scheme potentially. And therefore these sorts of “what if, what shape” events were being held in what MSA users would call the policy stream.

What I think we can learn from this is that people anticipate the near future and want to be ready for it so they can get rich. And that’s what so much of carbon pricing has been about – not actually reducing emissions, because if you wanted to reduce emissions you would do different things and you would have to start doing them now rather than letting the so-called market which you’re busy creating decide.

What happened next

The 2009 effort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act to get emissions trading something Waxman – Leigh bill was defeated narrowly Obama basically gave up and then f***** off to Copenhagen for the photo op. 

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

September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, September 5, 1986, a big (it’s relative) rally took place in London, in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, sponsored by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in April 1986 the nuclear dream had suffered yet another setback with the partial meltdown of a dodgy Soviet reactor at Chernobyl. This had been big news globally, but especially in most of the countries downwind which included Sweden Scotland Wales England etc (the French had a different view).

In May 1986, following the Chernobyl disaster, an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 people had marched in Rome to protest against the Italian nuclear program. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace were engaged in trying to move the UK government from its pro-nuclear stance. 

What I think we can learn from this

Energy is a political football as we are always rediscovering. It always comes with judgements about how much is enough, what risks are worth running, who should run those risks at cetera. The risk of unmitigated climate change had not yet properly broken through into the public consciousness at this point, but within two years it began to.

What happened next

 In 1988 the greenhouse issue came along and it would be impossible to hold that kind of rally without mentioning 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.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 4, 2000 – industry says sky will fall if there’s a carbon tax

Thirty three years ago, on this day, September 4, 2000, industry did another of its ‘the sky will fall’ efforts.

Victorian economic growth could be slashed by more than 2 per cent, thousands could lose their jobs and the aluminum industry could close if a strict anti-greenhouse gas regime is introduced, according to a landmark study.

The study by the Allen Consulting Group has estimated that Victoria’s gross state product would be between 1.3 per cent and 2.6 per cent smaller in 2012 if an emissions trading system or carbon tax scheme were introduced to combat Australia’s growing rate of unwanted greenhouse gas emissions.

Hopkins, P. 2000. Study Warns Of Greenhouse Gas Mayhem. The Age, 4 September, p1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Victorian government was proposing things that industry did not like. So that was enough for yet another “oh my god the sky will fall if you so much as tax a single molecule of hydrocarbons, we will all starve to death.” These economic models get put in reports and get turned into press releases and speeches which are dutifully reported by stenographers to power.

What I think we can learn from this is that these nonsense economic modeling reports are a favorite weapon in the war against sanity and the public good.

What happened next 

I am a bad historian, I haven’t bothered to go and look at what happened next. Did the government find the backbone to stare down this report? Sometimes they can. It depends on all manner of things not just the particular courage of the particular minister.

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

September 4, 1990 – Industry whines about environment minister’s speech

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 4, 1990, Industry went all snowflake because a minister was a Mean Girl.

Anon, 1990. Industry upset about Minister’s Attack on Miners, Foresters. Green Week, September 4, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Hawke government was having to keep promises it had made to environmental groups in order to win the 1990 federal election. One promise was to set up an ecologically sustainable development process. The very existence of this offended industry, which was used to getting its own way via the usual means and did not feel it should ever have to justify its policies and proposals to anyone, least of all a bunch of smelly hippies. Relations with the then environment minister Ros Kelly were complicated, especially after she had made robust statements about what the miners meant with their definition of sustainability.

What I think we can learn from this is that industry was used to getting its own way and as per that old line “when privilege is removed it feels like oppression” industry always feels oppressed.

What happened next is that the ecologically sustainable development process continued but was then thrown in the circular file when new prime minister Paul Keating shat all over it and the federal bureaucracy buried it as this blog post about the events of August 6, 1992.

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..