Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science

May 8, 2013 – we pass 400 parts per million.  Trouble ahead.

Ten years ago, on this day, May 8, 2013, we went over 400ppm…

We are a society that has inadvertently chosen the double-black diamond run without having learned to ski first. It will be a bumpy ride. (Gavin Schmidt)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was, well, exactly, 400ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had been theorised since the 19th century. However accurate measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide were hard to come by. The problem was finally solved with money from the US Navy that allowed Charles David Keeling to set up an observatory at the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii far away from industrial sources of carbon (factories and so on). Measurements have been taken there and elsewhere for decades. When measures started, in 1958, atmospheric concentrations were 315 parts per million. This went up at basically one part per million per year and then started to increase.

What I think we can learn from this

One big danger of this site is fetishizing giving more power and life and meaning than is warranted to atmospheric concentrations. I don’t know quite how to get around this and I am sure I have not succeeded that far. We cannot ignore that the rapid buildup of carbon dioxide is not a “natural” process. It is tied to a series of decisions humans collectively make about what kind of societies they want, that how many people doing what what and and allowing and facilitating what kind of actions vs other actions.

What happened next

Since then the atmospheric concentrations have predictably continued to climb and are now at roughly 420 million. Btw, that’s just of carbon dioxide; if you add the massive increase in in methane which is measured in parts per billion we have a real problem.

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 Denial

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

On this day eight years ago, May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman (the guy who had been ABC chair and given a particularly stupid speech) peddled his delusions in a delusional “news”paper

“In an article in The Australian on May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council, said that the United Nations is behind the global warming hoax. The real agenda of the UN “is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” Newman said. “This is not about facts or logic,” he added. “It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” 

James Rodgers: Can Scientists be wrong?

You can read it in all its crapulent glory here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

These sorts of “secret UN plot” things have been around for yonks, partly because, well, yes, specific capitalist interests DID fund early work into conservation and environmental limits. That doesn’t mean it’s all made up. But that’s too much for Newman and Lyndon Larouche and that crowd to get their heads around.

What we can learn

You can be quite successful and powerful in this society and at the same time be dumb as a rock. All you need is the right skin colour, the right school, a penis and bish bosh, you’re in…


What happened next

Further embarrassments. And emissions. Which is embarrassing in itself, if you want the “sapiens” in homo sapiens to mean 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

Categories
United States of America

May 7, 2001 – The American way of life is non-negotiable. Again.

Twenty two years ago, on this day, May 7, 2001, George “W” Bush’s spokesman was telling the truth.

 “The President believes that it’s an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy-makers to protect [it]. The American way of life is a blessed one . . . The President also believes that the American people’s use of energy is a reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy.”

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/briefings/20010507.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush had pulled the US out of the negotiations for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. The September 11 attacks were still four months away (Bush basically read about them, was warned about them over the summer and did nowt). 

Anyway, this idea that the American way of life, which is actually about the high hydrocarbon way of life for a minority of people within the US,  – the wealthy, is somehow sacred. It’s fascinating from a theological point of view, prosperity, gospel and all that nonsense. 

See also Bush Snr  “American way of life is non-negotiable” in 1992.

What I think we can learn from this

Humans are very good, at pretending things that give them comfort and power are somehow ordained by a bearded sky god.  It can form a last redoubt of “Oh, you don’t respect my beliefs as a member of the faith-based community?” (Well, no, I’m a member of the reality based community.)

What happened next

Bush continued to shit all over the planet. And in my fantasy, he’s in the next cell along to John Howard, at The Hague to be charged with crimes against humanity and future generations…

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

May 6, 2004 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard meets business, to kill renewables

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 6, 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard convened a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group in order to …  get them to help him kill off renewables. This is really quite extraordinary. 

The Federal Government and fossil-fuel industry executives discussed ways to stifle growing investment in renewable energy projects at a secret meeting earlier this year.

Prime Minister John Howard called the meeting on May 6, five weeks before releasing the energy white paper on June 14.

The white paper favours massive investment in research to make fossil fuels cleaner, at the expense of schemes boosting growth in renewable energy.

Mr Howard called together the fossil-fuel-based Lower Emissions Technology Advisory Group to seek advice on ways to avoid extending the mandatory renewable energy targets scheme.

Anon, 2004. PM called talks to derail renewable energy The Age, October 3, 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a federal election coming. Opposition Leader Mark Latham was having some success, talking about renewables. The existing renewable scheme that had grudgingly started in 2002, was proving more successful than Howard wanted. Vestas had opened up a factory in Tasmania. And it was all looking as if Howard wasn’t going to be able to continue to easily rubbish renewables and therefore he tried to call in favours. We only know about this because it was leaked later that year.

What I think we can learn from this 

The slowness of the arrival of renewables is not simply a question about whether the technology is not ready or “Oh, the business models aren’t ready.” There is also often explicit effective resistance from business and from government. It’s rare for them to be caught as red-handed as this. It didn’t seem to have much short term damage for Howard who won the 2004 Election.

What happened next

The Vestas factory in Tasmania shut down. Australian progress on renewables was slowed. John Howard deserves to rot in a fiery hell for what he did to Australia but personally, I don’t believe in hell so I’d just be happy to see him rot in a prison cell in The Hague on trial for crimes against humanity.

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

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

Seventy years ago, on this day, May 5, 1953, the modern “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” era began.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Plass had become interested in the question of carbon dioxide buildup while being paid by Ford Motor Company. He had corresponded with British steam engineer and scientist Guy Callendar. Plass only looked at how carbon dioxide actually functions in the real world, and whether the bands become saturated or not (they don’t).

What I think we can learn from this

This is the pivotal moment, when someone takes the carbon dioxide theory and starts hammering it out…

This  classic warning went around the world. It was eye-catching, and it was syndicated, certainly in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. And it probably helped. George Wendt in his writing in the UNESCO magazine Courier, which also got syndicated. So you can see these couple of people speaking up about it.  

Plass’s warning also popped up in Time, Newsweek, and elsewhere, this was really consequential. 

What happened next

Plass kept writing and thinking about climate build up carbon buildup. In 1956, he had an academic article published in Tellus, the Swedish scientific journal.- “the  carbon dioxide theory of climate change”, and also a popular article in the American Scientist.  

He was there in 1961 at the New York Academy of Sciences/American Meteorological Society meeting and at the 1963 Conservation Foundation meeting. But that was his last gasp on the topic… 

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 Industry Associations

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

Fifty years ago, on this day, May 4, 1973, the  Australian Mining Industry Council advertised for an environmental policy officer.

1973  AMIC advert for an environmental policy officer in Canberra Times

Canberra Times 5 May p 23

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the relatively new Australian Mining Industry Council is advertising for an environmental policy officer because this hippie bollocks about pollution was clearly not going to go away. I have had the unalloyed pleasure of reading the environmental information bulletins of the Australian Mining Industry Council. They’re available at the National Library of Australia in Tasmania in Canberra. And they are silent as far as I could tell, on the question of greenhouse gases.

What I think we can learn from this

Not entirely surprising, because trade associations are there to help companies fight today’s battles. And greenhouse was not today’s battle in 1973 74 75.

What happened next

AMIC threw its weight around in the 80s and 90s, to the point it became so toxic it had to be rebranded as the Minerals Council of Australia(see Geoff Allen’s consultancy work on this in 1994). 

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

Categories
Australia Coal Cultural responses Denial Economics of mitigation Industry Associations

 May 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence… – 

The greenies need to be put back in their box…. Lobbying, economic modelling, scare campaigns, smears. The usual…

“The recent shift in the environmental debate to promote global rather than regional goals is causing alarm among the world’s leading industrialists because of its potential to distort world trade and regional economies.

“The impact on Australia is assuming major proportions, with an Access Economics study to be released next week revealing that one-third of almost$40 billion in proposed mining and manufacturing projects are under threat of environmental veto”

 Massey, M. 1990. Environmental debate tops agenda at coal conference. Australian Financial Review, 4 May, p. 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that industry had only just started to push back against green groups. It had lazily assumed that the whole thing was a fad that would blow itself out very quickly. It was only really in late 1989/early 1990 that they started, in Australia, to properly co-ordinate a firm response…

What I think we can learn from this

When they wreck everyone’s future, that’s within normal parameters. If anyone tries to stop them, even slow them, that counts as “distortion”

What happened next

They won.  The UN process was effectively kneecapped. Domestic processes were kneecapped. They got rich. The atmosphere got enriched too – with insane amounts of carbon dioxide…

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
Renewable energy United States of America

May 3, 1978 – First and last “Sun Day”

Forty five years ago, on this day, May 3, 1978, the first and last “Sun Day” organised by Dennis Hayes took place

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

QUOTE FROM  In the rain! (Graetz, 2011: 117)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Denis Hayes had been neck deep in the Earth Day organising of 1970 and spent the rest of the decade trying to get people to take alternative energy solar energy seriously.

The National Academy of Sciences report on climate had come out in July of 1977. Carter had signed the Climate Change Act that had been proposed by George Brown. People were beginning to think that carbon dioxide might really screw us. Increasing the amount of solar energy was clearly a good idea, but didn’t get implemented. 

What I think we can learn from this

Solutions technological, political, economic, social, have existed and they have constantly been out fought, outspent by existing vested interests and the natural small c conservatism and inertia and obduracy of large technical systems.

Getting a new technology to be accepted is a very very hard task.

What happened next

Well, famously, the Reagan administration took the solar panels off the White House in 1986. But by then Reagan’s goons had already done a very good job in destroying momentum towards ecological sanity (not that a second Carter term would necessarily have delivered).

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

May 2, 2019 – Committee on Climate change report on net zero by 2050

Four years ago, on this day, May 2, 2019,  The UK Committee on Climate Change released its report on the  UK becoming net zero by 2050

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 414.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that once the UK had signed up to the Paris Agreement, which it had ratified in late 2016, it was pretty clear that the existing target of an 80% reduction by 2050 on a 1990 baseline was not going to be adequate as the UK contribution to keeping temperatures below two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Therefore, the target would need revisiting. The logical outfit to do that revisiting was, of course, the Committee on Climate Change. It did the work and released it in 2019, by which time a bunch of MPs – including Conservatives who had campaigned for Brexit – were pushing for a 2050 net zero target. 

What I think we can learn from this

Big, “round number” promises can have serious institutional consequences if there’s enough momentum underneath them. So, the 1988 Toronto target was a big round number target, but it didn’t have institutional momentum behind it. There wasn’t enough intellectual and political heft, whereas the Paris Target of 2015 was different, and has been more consequential politically. Not I hasten to add, in terms of real life reduction in emissions, but you can’t have everything 

What happened next

And so it came to pass in the final days of the Theresa May administration, the 2008 Climate Change Act was amended to raise the target. This has had serious implications for the attention paid to sectors of the economy, especially industry, which had previously thought they could be in that 20% that could be emitting in the year 2050.

Lots of reports and activity about “Net Zero by 2050”. We shall see…

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 Science

May 1, 1980 – ABC talks about atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement

Forty-three years ago, on this day, May 1, 1980, the ABC  Nationwide TV programme covered climate change

Item details for: C475, 1942227  “Baseline’ station set up on Cape Grim in north-west Tasmania to monitor levels of carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Wooley refers to the ‘glasshouse effect’, prior to the now established term ‘greenhouse effect’. Permaculture, founded by Bill Mollison, could be counter to greenhouse effect.”

Source National Archives

The atmospheric ppm was 341.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists were making really accurate measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and had been for a long time. By 1980, there was more and more international awareness of the climate issue. And so for example, two weeks before the Nationwide programme, the Age newspaper, had run a story about “World ecology is endangered.” [Link to AOY]  So it may simply be that when the CSIRO sent out a press release about Cape Grim that the Nationwide producer said, “Hell yeah, there’s a hook for this.” Who knows? Lost in the mysteries, the histories of time.

What I think we can learn from this

Anyone wanting to pay attention knew what might be/was on the horizon. It’s also the case that it is much harder for researchers to figure out what was shown on television than was written in newspapers and magazines, which leave a more searchable digital trace.

What happened next

By August of that year, the Australian Academy of Science held a conference in Canberra about climate change. In 1981, the Office of National Assessments wrote a secret report about the carbon dioxide problem. But Australia continued to be largely asleep. Despite many, many attempts to wake her 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.

References