Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 8th, 1999, an “audacious” idea is unleashed on the world…
Klaus Lackner posits Direct Air Capture 24th Annual Technical Conference on coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, March 8-11, 1999 Clearwater, Florida
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367.4ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that for the previous 10 years, technology types had been thinking about carbon capture and storage as a technofix for the socio-technical problem of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations increasing. And all sorts of ideas had been put forward, mostly around making coal burning more “efficient”, getting more bang for the buck, decreasing the intensity. And along comes the idea of direct air capture.
What I think we can learn from this is that ideas which seem very new often usually have a long pre-history. It’s worth knowing that, at least at outline level, so that you will not be so easily seduced by shiny promises.
What happened next DAC really stayed on the backburner for about another 15 years. From about the 2015 Paris Agreement onwards, people start paying money and pretending to take it seriously. We’re just not going to do DAC at the scale that would require; it’s insane. It’s just another dream of technosalvation.
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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 4th, 1970, a scientist talks about a human-induced Ice Age. Not likely, he finds.
I find that the present particulate loading would have to be increased by a factor of 5 to produce a 3°C drop in mean planetary surface temperature. This work was done in November and December of 1969 and was presented before the International Solar Energy Society in Melbourne, Australia, on 4 March 1970.
Earl W Barrett,, 1971 letter in Science
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that scientists, especially in America, were beginning to look seriously at carbon dioxide buildup at national conferences, starting to get findings. And scientists fancied an international jolly – sorry, “opportunity to network and further the advance of the human species’ knowledge.”
Australia was still in the dark ages on carbon dioxide buildup, it would be 1971-72 before scientists (Pearman, Pittock) started being paid to look at this stuff. Meanwhile, Melbourne was in the grip of its pollution fever. So Barrett’s comments will have free received interest in the media.
Also, in September 1969, the C02 issue had already been discussed by Australian scientists – in public fora.
What I think we can learn from this
“International networks of concerned scientists” etc. Science is international blah blah. But from the late 1960s, carbon dioxide was being looked at.
What happened next
In 1972 a clean air conference in Melbourne that had a specific set of papers about CO2 buildup. We ignored the scientists until 1988. Then we heard them but have basically ignored them since then.
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.
Twenty three years ago, on this day, November 9, 2000, an academic collaboration finally ground into existence, after a 1997 Tony Blair election promise…
The Tyndall Centre is a national United Kingdom centre for trans-disciplinary research on climate change. It is dedicated to advancing the science of integration, to seeking, evaluating and facilitating sustainable solutions to climate change and to motivate society through promoting informed and effective dialogue. The Centre was constituted in October 2000 and launched officially on 9 November 2000.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Blair’s Labour Party had made a lot of promises in the run up to the 1997 election. One of these was the creation of a scientific body in the UK to look at climate change. And so on this day in November 2000, over three years later – nice sense of urgency Tony! The Tyndall Centre had been launched.
This was against the backdrop of stalling international climate negotiations in the midst of the uncertainty about whether Gore or Bush would be president in the end. George W. Bush’s dad’s mates on the Supreme Court fixed it for him. With the collapse of the negotiations at The Hague it was all looking pretty bleak.
What the Tyndall Centre would do, if one were to be cynical about it, is offer institutional homes for disciplinary and interdisciplinary work around climate change. Ultimately there’s something deeper and longer going on here isn’t there? There is a failure to really solve these problems. So you have to ask yourself, why do we keep doing what we keep doing? It’s because this change is really difficult and it’s comforting to keep doing what we’re doing. Fewer costs. It’s easier to be a winner on a losing team than a loser on a losing team because even if you switch, you yourself will not derive benefit, but I digress.
What I think we can learn from this
Academics gonna academic. It’s no bad thing.
What happened next
Tyndall is still going, still producing great work (I mean that sincerely, not snarkily!).
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.
Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 14, 2002, Aussie economists tried to get the smallest, most inadequate action taken…
“In a further response to what many see as Australia’s failure on the environment, more than 270 of the country’s academic economists called on 14 August [2002] for Prime Minister John Howard to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without delay. Howard rejected the Kyoto Protocol in June this year, stating that it would not be in the country’s interest to ratify without the inclusion of the US and developing nations. This is despite the fact that a recent survey of Australian citizens revealed that 71% believe it would be in the country’s interest to ratify.
“As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it serious environmental, economic and social risks and that preventive steps are justified,” says a statement by the economists. “Policy options are available that would slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia, and these may in fact improve productivity in the long term.”
However, Environment and Heritage Minister Dr David Kemp, told journalists on 19 August that Australia intends to keep to the targets laid out in the Kyoto Protocol, despite the fact that the country will not ratify.”
Excerpt from report by Radio Australia on 14 August
The Australian government is under further pressure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in the lead-up to the World Environment Summit in Johannesburg later this month. Samantha Hawley reports:
[Hawley] More than 250 economists have sent a message to the federal government, urging it to sign up to the protocol before the Johannesburg summit begins. Clive Hamilton, from the policy think tank, the Australia Institute, says the economists believe it will increase jobs and living standards.
[Hamilton] It really does throw the question to the prime minister on what basis is he making these claims on the economic cost ofKyoto. [End of recording]
[Passage omitted]
[Hawley] The call comes as the government moves to release its long-awaited greenhouse gas abatement figures tomorrow, which were originally due out before the election.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had, on Earth Day (June 5) announced he would not send the Kyoto Protocol for ratification through the Australian parliament. Clive Hamilton/Australia Institute got 270 economists together to do an open letter.
What I think we can learn from this
This is the sort of thing you have to do to raise the cost of bad behaviour, show that other people see the world differently. It didn’t work, but that’s not the fault of the people who tried it.
What happened next
Howard continued to be an asshat. Knocked down an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2003.
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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, April 25, 1969, Dave Keeling gave a speech at the “Symposium on Atmospheric Pollution: Its long-term implications” just over 10 years after he started measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa.
He was asked to change the title to “Is carbon dioxide from fossil fuel changing man’s environment? from If carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is changing man’s environment, what will we do about it?”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by now Charles Keeling had been collecting atmospheric co2 data at Mauna Loa for 10 years and there was a distinct upward trend. So his first title was proposed as this and then for whatever reason, he had to tone it down. Which is interesting.
What I think we can learn from this
There are pressures within communities be they scientific activist, academic, political, designed to minimise disruption. One to hammer down any tall nails. And you can argue that human society is not possible, really without those mechanisms. You could also argue that by hammering down nails by cutting down the “tall timber” in the words of the Skyhooks, you’re less likely to get important shit done in the time that you need to.
See also that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, “Half a Life,” with David Ogden Stiers Willis, where he’s a 60 year old guy who’s going to have to be Logan’s Run, even though he possibly has the way out for his endangered society.
What happened next
Keeling kept taking his measures. He gave an even more interesting speech in May 1969. Keeling was proved right. And we are toast
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.
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.
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.
Sixty years ago, on this day, March 12, 1963, in New York
“Dr. Keeling was concerned enough about rising carbon dioxide levels to participate in a panel by the Conservation Foundation on March 12, 1963 “Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere”, the report issued being among the first to speculate that anthropogenic global warming could be dangerous to the Earth’s biological and environmental systems. It includes on page 6: “many life forms would be annihilated” [in the tropics] if emissions continued unchecked in the upcoming centuries. They also projected that carbon dioxide emissions could raise the average surface temperature of the earth by as much as 4°C during the next century (1963-2063)”
Probably the first gathering of scientists and policymakers devoted specifically and explicitly to carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere.
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
The Conservation Foundation had been set up in New York in 1948
The International Geophysical Year was now 5 years in the past, a lot of data had been collected. In January of 1961, there had been a five day scientific conference organised by the American Meteorological Society and the New York Academy of Sciences with plenty of people talking about carbon dioxide buildup, and alongside that there had been other scientific efforts. So the Conservation Foundation, which had been aware of CO2 buildup as a potential problem for a while, held a gathering, the first ever carbon dioxide build up conference
What I think we can learn from this
Well, these sorts of events are fascinating for the legacy they leave. And for several years – really till the end of the 1960s – the publication about this meeting was cited whenever in writing about carbon dioxide buildup for years, and it only really fell away entirely after the 1971 study on the man’s impact on climate.
It also seems to have been the “last gasp” in climate science for Gilbert Plass whose statements and work from 1953 had been so important for the growth of acceptance of the carbon dioxide theory.
And in all probability, it was where Lewis Herbert aka Murray Bookchin got his facts for the section in his book written in 1964 and published in early 1965, called Crisis in our Cities, which will be discussed soon.
And the reason I say this is that the event was in New York, Bookchin was in New York and it’s impossible to imagine that he wasn’t aware of the Conservation Foundation’s activities. Bookchin’s politics were not of the technocrats. But just because he didn’t agree with the funders does not mean he’d have ignored what was happening under their auspices.
What happened next
Plass dropped out.
Roger Revelle and Charles Keeling kept doing what they were doing.
And the closing statement – well, it came to pass…
Twelve years ago, on this day, February 18, 2011 Australia’s chief scientific advisor Penny Sackett downed tools. She said in her statement – “”Institutions, as well as individuals, grow and evolve, and for both personal and professional reasons the time is now right for me to seek other ways to contribute.” (source)
This move was regarded at the time – rightly or wrongly – as a rebuke/frustration with the lack of ambition on climate policy.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Prime Minister Julia Gillard was in the middle of a shitstorm over climate policy that continued for months (Feb to August 2011).
What I think we can learn from this
Offering scientific advice to politicians is at best a very tough gig. At worst, you’re a fig leaf/complicit.
What happened next
Following chief scientific advisors were more willing to sing the praises of fantasy technologies and keep their heads down. Whether or not current and future generations are well-served by that is, well….
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Fifty five years ago, on January 19, 1968, the American publication“Science” reported on the (typical) capture of an advisory group by engineers and technocrats..
Many ecologists doubt the ability of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) to advise the government properly on problems of environmental pollution and disturbance. Moreover some environmental scientists within NAS itself find it deplorable that, in setting up an Environmental Studies Board last year to co-ordinate studies of environmental problems the leaders of NAS and NAE saw fit to include five people with backgrounds in industrial research but no one with a background in environmental biology. In the view of these critics, the environment’s “despoilers” may be better represented on the new board than its “preservers.”
Carter (1968)
Carter managed to get a great quote out of Lamont Cole, president of the Ecological Society of America – “The National Academy doesn’t know enough about ecology to know how ignorant it is.” This pithy summary is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect before that was named…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 418ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that everyone was beginning to get seriously perturbed by water/air pollution in the US (and some were beginning to grok the global implications). So what do you do? You ask the experts to set up an investigatory/advisory panel. And then they do – made up of people exactly like them….
[According to a new journal Environmental Science and Technology, the aforementioned Environmental Studies Board had been set up in early 1967. Ah, no, wait, further down in the Carter article there is this –
“This board was appointed in January 1967 by Frederick Seitz, president of NAS, and Eric Walker, president of NAE. THE board, establishment of which was recommended in a 1965 report (Restoring the Quality of Our Environment) by PSAC’s Envrionmental Pollution Panel, was assigned the responsibility of over-seeing and coordinating environmental studies carried on within the two academies. With this sweeping mission the board’s role is potentially one of great influence.” ]
Frederick bloody Seitz…
What I think we can learn from this
Any panel or programme – or research and innovation centre – will get captured by one tribe of academics, who will then funnel funding and prestige to their own tribe, at the expense of another tribe. That’s just how humans play the game. Every-so -often a Leviathan may knock heads together and insist the tribes play nice with each other, in order to get actual inter or multi-disciplinary working, but the silos – cognitive and financial – are always lurking, like the plague in that cheerful little book by the Sisyphus guy…
What happened next
Oh, a couple of token ecologists were probably appointed, if only to shut up Lamont Cole.
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
Luther J. Carter (1968) National Academy of Sciences: Unrest among the Ecologists. Science, Jan. 19 Vol. 159, No. 3812 , pp. 287- 289
.
