Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Ireland

April 23, 1954 – Irish Times runs carbon dioxide/climate story. Yes, 1954.

Sixty nine years ago, on this day, April 23, 1954, the Irish Times ran a brief article about climate change and carbon dioxide. Yes, 1954. 

It came from a journalist/scientist, Gerald Wendt, who had been writing for the UNESCO Courier.

23 April 1954 Irish Times article

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

In May 1953 Gilbert Plass had said to the American Geophysical Union meeting, in essence – “you know, that Brit, Guy Callendar who said, before the war, that carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere was leading to warming?? “ell, he’s right.”

What I think we can learn from this

The idea that carbon dioxide build up could be a problem was in the air (sorry, not sorry) for a long time.

What happened next

Wendt’s writing got syndicated/serialised elsewhere, including in the colonies.

By 1956 Plass had published on the subject. Others were doing likewise.

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 United States of America

April 22, 1993 – Clinton’s announcement used by anti-carbon pricing Aussies

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 22, 1993, Clinton’s announcement was used in the low-intensity conflict over carbon pricing…

A PLEDGE by the US President, Mr Clinton, to cut emissions of greenhouse gases will raise the pressure on Australia to take tougher action, according to a senior Australian bureaucrat and Australian business and environment groups.

A first assistant secretary of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Peter Core, told business lobbyists yesterday at a private seminar organised by the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, that Mr Clinton’s announcement would put renewed pressure on Australia’s stance on the issue.

And an assistant director of the Business Council of Australia, Ms Chris Burnup, said yesterday the move would dramatically change the complexion of talks on global climate change.

Garran, R. 1993. Clinton pledge cuts new key to the greenhouse. The Australian Financial Review, 23 April, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The business lobby and its proxies (including plenty in the Labor Party) had defeated the first attempt at a carbon tax during 1990-1991.  They knew it would be back soon-ish though.  This briefing to an AFR hack may have been an effort to smoke out proponents, force them to show their colours so they could be crushed. Alternatively, it might have been from a proponent, hoping to slowly raise the pressure, build a new normal…see the post from a few days ago about Keating…

What I think we can learn from this

You have to read newspaper articles thinking “which lying liar fed this to the hack, and what is the hack trying to push?” It’s exhausting to do this, and most of us most of the time just pretend that if it is in the paper (of our choice) it is ‘true.’ That’s nonsense, but there are rarely any personal consequences, so as an energy-saving habit, it persists.

What happened next

There was indeed another push for a carbon tax. It was defeated.  Australia didn’t get carbon pricing until 2012, and then only for a couple of years. To be clear – carbon pricing is one very small part of what you would do if you were trying to respond to the threats of climate change.  But it’s a brown M&M when it comes to how serious your government is..

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

 April 21, 1993 – Bill Clinton says US will tackle carbon emissions.

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 21, 1993, new President Bill Clinton made some promises, while giving a shout out to an Australian politician who had bottled a carbon tax.

His stand is a reversal of that taken by the former US President, Mr Bush, who refused at the Earth Summit to support specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or to back the biodiversity treaty.

At the start of his speech, Mr Clinton made an unexpected acknowledgement of Australia’s Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly.

“We should introduce a guest from another country who is here with us – the environmental minister from Australia, Ros Kelly,” he said. “Would you stand up? We’re glad to have you here.”

Garran, R. 1993. Clinton pledge cuts new key to the greenhouse. Australian Financial Review 23 April p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Clinton had come to power in the 1992 Presidential election without ever really saying terribly much about climate change on the campaign trail (his running mate Al Gore had a book come out during the campaign – “Earth in the Balance.”)

This ‘Earth Day’ announcement came two months after the Feb 17 1993 starting gun for a short, sharp and er – failed – attempt to put a tax on petrol (or ‘gas,’ as the Americans call it).

What I think we can learn from this

Those looking to tax energy to a) reduce emissions and b) pay for research and development into renewable energy, do not have a particularly glorious track record.

What happened next

Clinton’s BTU tax was defeated (you can read about it later this year on this site, or, if you’re really impatient, see here). But not before it was reported in Australia (see tomorrow’s post!).

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

Erlandson, D. (1994) The Btu Tax Experience: What Happened and Why It Happened.  Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 173 (1994-1995) Vol. 12, no 1. 

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=pelr

Categories
Academia Agnotology Denial United States of America

April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud

Twenty five  years ago, on this day, April 20, 1998, the National Academy of Sciences had to hold a press conference and release a statement because climate deniers had been using its logo and type-face for one of their demented petitions…

.

1998 April 20 NAS statement that Oregon petition not connected to NAS  https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/1998/04/statement-of-the-council-of-the-nas-regarding-global-change-petition

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Well, as per wikipedia – 

The petition was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (described as “a small independent research group”) in 1998, and again in 2007.[4] Frederick Seitz, then chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote a supporting cover letter, signed as “Past President National Academy of Sciences USA, President Emeritus Rockefeller University“.[5][6][7] 

More deeply – despite keeping the US from having any likelihood of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the deniers were not happy. They wanted to continue to fling mud, and to sow doubt and confusion. The phony petition was a part of that…

What I think we can learn from this

There are NO – nada, zilch, none – depths of intellectual and moral depravity to which goons like these would not be happy to sink.

What happened next

The Oregon petition was latched onto by the usual type of scientifically-illiterate ‘libertarian’ and ‘contrarian’ as somehow showing there was still debate about carbon dioxide build-up. Worked a treat, because thick pseudo-smart people lap this crap 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
Germany Poland

April 19, 1943 – the Warsaw Ghetto uprising began.

Eighty years ago, on this day, April 19, 1943, Jews in the  Warsaw Ghetto rose up.  That should be honoured.  No matter the odds (and the odds of survival were basically zero, and nobody can have been under any illusions about that), a fight is required…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 311ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Let’s not pretend the Nazis invented anti-Semitism, okay. It was very well-embedded in European culture…

And let’s also ponder how European assaults on Africa, the Americas, Australasia, similar in ideology and equipment, were a precursor to the industrialisation of slaughter.

What I think we can learn from this

We really really need to know the history.

What happened next

The murder of Jews, Romani, and other categories of ‘untermenschen’ continued.

Let’s not pretend that the techniques the Nazis used, around counter-insurgency, were not intriguing to the US, nor that the counter-insurgency techniques didn’t travel (along with some of the actual Nazi perpetrators).

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

April 19, 1973 – first film to mention global warming released (Soylent Green)

Fifty years ago, on this day, April 19, 1973, the first Hollywood film to mention global warming was released…

1973 Soylent Green released http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Harry “Stainless Steel Rat” Harrison had written a novel called “Make Room, Make Room”, published in 1968. This became Soylent Green.

The timing wasn’t as good as it could have been – the “Malthusian Moment” was passing/had passed, but such is the danger with films, which inevitably have a long lead-time.

See also other films of the time that have interesting things to say about “ecology”-

Silent Running (1972)

Rollerball (1975)

The Omega Man (1971) (starring C. Heston)

Planet of the Apes  (1968) (starring C. Heston)

What I think we can learn from this

Global warming was considered by the script-writers and director to be well-enough known as not to mystify the audience…

It’s hard to talk about societal conspiracies/conspiracies of silence. This film was a decent effort, imo.

And the stuff with Edward G. Robinson is great…

What happened next

Heston, who had been a liberal darling, went further and further “right” – a common but not universal or inevitable path.

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.

See also

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425972-1/1973-film-soylent-green-environmental-movement

Categories
Australia

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

Ten years ago, on this day, April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” was revealed to be nonsense.

18 April 2013:[ABC investigative television programme]  Lateline follows up with CSIRO on soil carbon and proves again that Greg Hunt’s soil carbon plan would require up to “two thirds of the land mass of Australia.”   

.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Liberal and National Party opposition had been hammering the Gillard government on the so-called “carbon tax” and proposing a so-called “direct action” scheme, despite pleadings from business.  “Direct Action” (nice name, shame about the science) was based on heroic (i.e. bullshit) assumptions about lots of things, including the ability of soil to absorb carbon….  So, Greg Hunt, Liberal opposition spokesman on climate (who had written an Honours thesis on carbon trading in 1990) was out there spouting all sorts of nonsense.  And getting pushback, but so what, eh?

What I think we can learn from this

Facts don’t matter, when there is a vast propaganda machine defending anyone spewing useful non-facts.

What happened next

On 19 April 2013: Climate Spectator points out mysteries, questions and problems after Greg Hunt’s address to ANU. The [Labor] Government also releases a detailed line by line rebuttal of Greg Hunt’s speech.

The Liberal National coalition became the government. “Direct Action” was “tried” – and guess what, to precisely nobody’s surprise, emissions went 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
Australia Carbon Pricing

April 17, 1993 –  Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 17, 1993, newly-re-elected Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating made another mental note to hate environmentalists….

The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Simon Crean, have denied knowledge of alleged Treasury proposals for a $1.9 billion energy tax.

Mr Crean rejected reports in The Weekend Australian and The Age on Saturday [17 April] which suggested that a tax on the energy content or fuels and possibly carbon emissions, being discussed by Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, had drawn on studies by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy

Brough, J. 1993. Keating, Crean deny energy-tax proposal. Canberra Times, Monday 19 April, p.3. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126983159

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The carbon tax idea had been around for quite a while, and in 1990-91 a combination of industry figures managed to defeat it.  Environment Minister Ros Kelly had said, at the Rio Earth Summit, that it wasn’t something that would be done, but the proposed “solution” did not, of course, go away. If Australia were to meet its “stabilisation target”, let alone its 20 per cent reduction by 2005 target, economic measures like a tax were going to be needed…

What I think we can learn from this

People inside bureaucracies leak, either to put pressure on politicians, or to kill an idea by prematurely releasing it. In this case, who knows?

What happened next

The push for a carbon tax came up again, in 1994, and was defeated by early 1995. There wouldn’t be a price on carbon dioxide until 2012, and that only lasted a couple of years. And the emissions climbed….

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 Capture and Storage Coal

April 16, 2008 – Aussie trades unions, greenies, companies tried to get CCS ‘moving.’

Fifteen years ago, on this day, April 16, 2008, trades unions and greenies and companies tried to get CCS ‘moving.’

“In April 2008 the Australian Coal Association (ACA) proposed — in conjunction with WWF Australia, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Climate Institute in Australia — that the Rudd Labor government establish a National Carbon Capture and Storage Taskforce. The taskforce, they proposed, “would be charged with developing and implementing a nationally coordinated plan to oversee rapid demonstration and commercialisation of 10,000 GWh of carbon capture and storage (CCS) electricity per year by 2020.”

https://www.gem.wiki/The_Australian_Coal_Association%27s_Proposed_Carbon_Capture_and_Storage_Taskforce

Here’s a picture of the top of the press release

And here’s a link to a pdf – https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/b/b4/ACA_Media_Release_160408.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

While trying to become Australian Prime Minister, the Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd had used climate change as an issue with which to paint incumbent Prime Minister John Howard as an uncaring dinosaur. Rudd had also used “carbon capture and storage” as a way of calming the nerves of coalminers in vital states (Queensland and New South Wales).  Now a coalition of pro-coal types and “greenies” were trying to get some money.  And money they would get…

What I think we can learn from this

Wanna win elections? Make big promises. Whether they can be kept or not will depend…

Technological salvationism fantasies need institutional and organisational backing.  Lots of it.  Players know this, and get the taxpayer to fund it.

What happened next

Rudd threw 100 million Australian taxpayers’ dollars at the creation of a “Global Carbon Capture and Storage institute”.

Those projects all up and running by 2020, then twelve years in the future? Yeah, nah.

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

April 16, 1980 – Melbourne Age reports “world ecology endangered”

Forty three years ago, on this day, April 16, 1980, the Melbourne Age ran an article based on comments by US scientist William Kellogg and others at a US Senate energy and natural resources committee hearing the day before. 

“The world could face an ecological disaster unless the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere is controlled.”

It is a stone cold classic of the “we were warned earlier than you think” genre. It is based on a congressional hearing, led by a clued-up Democrat, Paul Tsongas. Many familiar names are there (including some less familiar ones).  And the warnings are entirely prescient.

And here we are.

Anon. 1980. World Ecology is endangered. The Age, April 16, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The big scientific push from the mid-1970s, in the aftermath of the 1972 Stockholm Conference, had left the scientists pretty clear on what was coming down the line. Their big challenge was to get politicians to see it.  Some (Tsongas, George Brown et al.) did…

What I think we can learn from this

The same dynamic has been playing out for ages – library shelves grown under the weight of books about the Science-Politics “interface”, with bromides about what is to be done…

What happened next

Work was already underway in Australia for an Australian Academy of Science conference about the topic.  Graeme Pearman and others (Barrie Pittock) were beavering away.

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.