Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Science Sea level rise United States of America

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

On this day, 40 years ago, a conference on sea level rise took place in Washington, D.C

“In March 1983, many of this book’s findings were presented to a conference of over 150 scientists, engineers, and federal, state, and local policy makers. Although those attending agreed that sea level rise, if substantiated, would justify the attention of policy makers at all levels, some doubted whether anything less than a catastrophe could motivate people to undertake the necessary actions.”

Titus and Barth, 1983

http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_chapter1.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343.ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context

Scientists, by the late 1970s, were pretty sure what was coming. Questions about how much, how soon, but pretty sure.

What we can learn from this

That we are smart enough to create the machines that cause – as a by-product of their functioning- these problems. We are smart enough to detect them. We are not smart enough to do anything about our smartness.

What happened next

The seas rose

References: 

http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_chapter1.pdf

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

March 29, 1993 – C02 Disposal symposium takes place in Oxford

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 29, 1993, the International Energy Agency (lEA) held a  Carbon Dioxide Disposal Symposium in Oxford

https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-019689049390012Y/first-page-pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that coal was clearly going to continue to be burned. So how to do it cleaner? What are the options? Is sequestration in the deep oceans possible? Can you improve the gasification? There had also two years previously been a big event sponsored by the Australian Coal Association in Sydney. 

What I think we can learn from this

They’ve been banging on about clean coal for donkey’s years.

Rearguard actions by dinosaur technologies can “work”

What happened next

Technologies were proposed. They were rapidly prototyped, the business models sorted, the regulatory issues sorted. The technologies then shared and everyone in the world started burning coal cleanly. And we all lived happily ever after.  Except for the mining accidents, and the mercury, and all the rest of it…

And then I woke 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

Tilley, J. 1993. IEA carbon dioxide disposal symposium Oxford, United Kingdom 29th–31st March 1993 IEA Perspectives on global climate change issues.  Energy Conversion and Management Volume 34, Issues 9–11, September–November 1993, Pages 711-718

Categories
Denial United States of America

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

Six years ago, on this day, March 28, 2017, PBSs report on the denialist Heartland Institute spamming science teachers with ludicrous “NIPPC” nonsense.

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

“Twenty-five thousand science teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast said in an interview last week. If so, the campaign would reach more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers.”

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 407.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the culture war never ends. The Heartland Institute had suffered reverses because of its attempt to smear environmentalists with the Unabomber; it was all considered a bit much (see May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face). And so low profile stuff, like sending science teachers loads of crap was more likely to keep them afloat and feeling important.

What I think we can learn from this

As per the blog post about the school student, and the textbooks, which we come to in April, controlling what children are able to learn about climate change the way it is framed is a major goal of denialists organisations. And unfortunately, they have been very successful in this. Here we are 35 years into public knowledge of a climate emergency and most people are not taught or are mis-taught this stuff as they grow up. And then that sets the anchoring for them (see the anchoring heuristic). 

What happened next

Heartland has kept going on this stuff I think and most textbooks are crap on this as per December 22 2022 report.

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 Kingdom

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, March 27, 1966, a letter by Douglas McEwan launching the Conservation Society appears in the Observer newspaper.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a previous letter by a woman called Edith Freeman. Freeman had led to the creation of the Conservation Society in the context of enormous concerns about air quality species loss, both within the UK and internationally increased population. There were a series of books such as Silent Spring, but also UK books

You also had the rise of the motorway, the increase in concerns about air, water and noise pollution… So a Conservation Society to tackle these issues and to offer advice to civil servants and politicians seemed like a good idea at the time. 

What I think we can learn from this

We need to understand that groups come and go suiting an ideological setting

There’s a comparison with Amnesty which is still going. It also started from I think, an article about Portugal and torture and then a letter saying “something should be done.”

What happened next

The Torrey Canyon incident of 1967 proved the Conservation Society’s point. The Conservation Society’s high watermark period was really 1968 to 1971. But then, new groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were formed that were slightly more radical and sexier. And the Conservation Society continued for another 20 years until 1987 and was then wound up, its message about “population explosion” no longer on the money. In the meantime, it produced a lot of useful reports which are still achingly relevant, and some of which have been covered on this site.

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
UNFCCC United Kingdom United Nations

March 26, 1993 – UK government to ratify climate treaty

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 26, 1993, there was a  House of Commons debate  In reply to a question on the subject, the Government confirmed that they would be ratifying the UNFCCC.- 

“At this week’s [EC] Environment Council [22-23 March 1993] all member states agreed to take the measures necessary to enable them to ratify the convention not later than the end of 1993. This matches the UK’s earlier commitment, along with our Group Seven partners, to ratify the convention by the end of 1993.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1992, nations had come together and held hands in Rio, and signed a massively watered down treaty. John Major had offered to host the follow up to Rio because at this point, it wasn’t clear that the treaty would receive enough ratifications quickly enough to start holding its official meetings. So the UK still wanted to be seen as a leader on international climate policy. 

What I think we can learn from this

Sometimes things happen quicker than people think (like UNFCCC ratification)

What happened next

The Global Forum in Manchester, which was a serious egg-on-face for the Labour Council…

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

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Ten years ago, on this day, March 25, 2013, the Australian federal government killed off the Department of Climate Change, now that the “carbon tax” (actually a carbon price) was in situ, and the whole issue was unbelievably toxified.

Department of Climate Change is disbanded:

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is abolished. Most of its functions are moved to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, with responsibility for energy efficiency transferred to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The context was that the Gillard government had expended enormous amounts of capital and had sustained, enormous reputational damage to push through a carbon price mechanism. That one that, if Kevin Rudd hadn’t been useless, would have happened on his watch. The Gillard government was by this time, intensely allergic to climate issues, understandably so. Disbanding the department wasn’t going to send a signal to anyone about anything, though it probably was a bad move, because the expertise is then scattered. But then the people were probably already shattered. Morale is always an issue for civil servants trying to construct decent policy while an idiotic culture war happens around them.

What I think we can learn from this

As an historian or political historian, it’s always interesting to see when, why Departments of State are created combined or abolished and whether the commentary and expectations at the time turn out to be accurate. So the best example I can think of is that in 2016, the assumption that the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK was going to be absorbed into the business department. Environmentalists were understandably fearful that climate would be subsumed within energy, and would be off the agenda. And that wasn’t the case. That’s not to say that BEIS has played a blinder every single day.

What happened next

Gillard got toppled by Rudd, who then lost the election to Tony Abbott, who was a wrecking ball. The emissions trading scheme was abolished, the earth salted. 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
United States of America

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil.

Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 24, 2010, another depressing article appeared in Nature. Why do they never print positive stories, eh?

Even soil feels the heat 

Twenty years of field studies reveal that as the Earth has gotten warmer, plants and microbes in the soil have given off more carbon dioxide. So-called soil respiration has increased about one-tenth of 1 percent per year since 1989, according to an analysis of past studies in today’s issue of Nature.

The scientists also calculated the total amount of carbon dioxide flowing from soils, which is about 10 -15 percent higher than previous measurements. That number — about 98 petagrams of carbon a year (or 98 billion metric tons) — will help scientists build a better overall model of how carbon in its many forms cycles throughout the Earth. Understanding soil respiration is central to understanding how the global carbon cycle affects climate.

https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=786

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this part of the ongoing work, scientific work in biological systems, is pointing out that the impacts of climate change are on the whole going to come faster and harder than we previously thought. Not always but usually.

Biologists had been looking at climate change and going “hmm” since the mid 1950s (see the great G. Evelyn Hutchinson).

What I think we can learn from this

We need to remember that there is the risk as James Hansen puts it of being too reticent, as per his May 2007 thoughts (link here).

What happened next

We kept running the big experiment. And the results are coming in.

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
Coal United Kingdom

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

Thirty  years ago, on this day, March 23, 1993, the UK government released its “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper

Main conclusions were:  

subsidy to be offered to bring extra tonnage down to world market prices, 

no pit to be closed without being offered to the private sector,  

no changes to the gas and nuclear sectors,  

increased investment in clean coal technology, 

regeneration package for mining areas increased to £200 million

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had defeated the miners’unions using the police, MI5, the media and so on. Coal mines were being closed, left and right. And mining communities were being torn apart. It was unclear what if any future coal had in the energy mix. And of course, by this time, greenhouse gas concerns were present. And so the white paper comes out in that backdrop and the hope is that there will be such a thing as “clean coal.” 

And by 1993 the IEA was organising symposia on clean coal and sequestration and set forth why we needed it (AOY links).

What I think we can learn from this

Technologies that are on the backfoot especially if they are long lasting, don’t go down without a fight as a real rearguard action. And Bruno Turnheim wrote an entire PhD thesis about this. 

What happened next

Coal continued to dwindle, looked like it might possibly make a comeback, and then didn’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..

Categories
Interviews

Interview with Alastair McIntosh about movements, burnout, community and much else

Alastair McIntosh, the Scottish writer and activist, kindly did an interview last month, the first for my “Groundhog Day or End of Days” project (see here).

You can (and in my opinion should!) read the transcript here, but here’s a few clips to whet your appetite.

And then I started to notice, you know, when I got involved with some CND type stuff, and so on, I noticed that every one of these campaigns would have a kind of half-life and it would rise very sharply and everybody would be saying, “Oh, this time we’re gonna do it. This time. We’re going to force the government’s hand, or whatever.. This is the big one. This is the breakthrough.”

And you know what? Kingdom never come. Not in that worldly sense of “thy kingdom come by” thy community come, thy opening up the way be done on earth as it is in heaven. Because it reaches a point of an apparent breakthrough and then it collapses.

So I learned that if I wasn’t going to become disillusioned whenever this happened, I had to anticipate it. And I frequently, my writing uses the metaphor of a surfer – that a surfer swims out and doesn’t waste time and energy grabbing every little wave that comes their way. The Surfer swims out. And I’ve never done it but I’ve watched my son doing it. And will maybe hang around for up to an hour, hoping for the perfect wave to come. And then surf in on the chosen wave.

and

marc hudson 45:27

You’ve kind of answered the question just there but I’ll ask it anyway. Besides burning out and selling out, then what other problems does this boom and bust cycle create?

Alastair McIntosh 45:43

It also creates false premises. So XR, have a big thing “Tell the truth.” But you’re not actually telling the truth when you’re misleading people as to how activism works. And I take XR as a presenting case, but it’s the case much more widely. It’s the case in politics. It’s all over this…

and

It leads to false hope. Which leads to the wrong kind of disillusionment. I say this because in my first book on climate change, Hell and High Water, that came out in 2008. I recommend what the Victorian Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers calls “The discipline of disillusionment.” Where he says we must become disillusioned. We must strip away our illusions of false hope in order to touch a deeper truth from which we can work realistically. So this is, what we’re talking about the activist world is not a disciplined disillusionment, it’s an indisciplined disillusionment that leaves people cast out as flotsam and jetsam on the beach. Sometimes quite psychologically damaged as you’re probably aware.

Categories
United States of America

March 22, 1960 – US Television warning of carbon dioxide build up, courtesy Athelstan Spilhaus…

Sixty three  years ago, on this day, March 22, 1960, viewers of a major US news channel were informed about carbon dioxide build-up and its implications.

“The Mysterious Deep” aired on March 22 and April 3, 1960, and is an important documentary for reasons beyond its music: First, it contains one of the earliest American television interviews with legendary explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau, whose UNDERSEA WORLD OF JACQUES COUSTEAU would later revolutionize TV’s approach to oceanography; and second, for its remarkably prescient view of climate change. Within its first five minutes, scientist Athelstan Spilhaus warns of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere that could eventually melt the polar ice caps.  https://buysoundtrax.myshopify.com/products/franz-waxman-the-documentaries-the-mysterious-deep-lenin-and-trotsk

“This documentary series hosted by Walter Cronkite,… examines outstanding events and personalities of the twentieth century. In this program, part one of two, Cronkite examines the mysteries of the ocean. Topics discussed include the following: penetrating the ocean surface; the aqualung, a self-contained breathing apparatus developed by oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau; the possibility that the ice caps will melt; the violence of the sea and scientists’ attempts to control the weather to stop violent hurricanes before they originate; how sea water is used to quench the thirsts of millions of people through irrigation systems that purify the water; the importance of seaweed harvesting in Japan; and how microphones are used to determine if sea creatures have a way of communicating. Includes a preview of part two.”

Details

  • NETWORK: CBS
  • DATE: March 27, 1960 Sunday 6:30 PM
  • RUNNING TIME: 0:26:15
  • COLOR/B&W: B&W

https://www.paleycenter.org/collection/item/?q=cbs&p=19&item=T79:0499

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year ended in 1958. And the questions of the weather in the natural world continued to be fascinating to everyone. And this was at the high tide of new technologies which could see further underwater so, Cousteau and so forth. 

What’s interesting about Spilhaus was that he worked for Roger Revelle in the 1930s. As I recall, I think he did a PhD. And he was also a cartoonist, and by 1958, he had started his famous world of tomorrow cartoons and in 1958. He had done one on the greenhouse effect in a 1958 cartoon here. 

This is one of the first examples of coverage of greenhouse gas emissions on the television  

What I think we can learn from this

We really have had loads of time to get used to the idea, haven’t we?

What happened next

Nothing effective on mitigation. Lots of emissions. Then consequences.

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..