Fifteen years ago, on this day, April 2, 2008, Senator Barack Obama, trying to become the Democratic Presidential candidate, made some suitably vague comments about coal while on a campaign stop…
April 2, 2008 Scranton Times quotes Obama as saying “And I saw somebody with a clean coal technology hat. We have abundant coal.”
Page 202-3 Climate Coverup
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
The coal industry was trying to paint itself as somehow ‘green’ (fantasies of carbon capture and storage). Electorally, bits of Pennsylvania and West Virginia were going to be crucial. So finding a way of seeming like you were supporting potential voters, while not alienating others, well, that’s the bread and butter of politics as normal, isn’t it, especially in winner-take-all systems…
What I think we can learn from this
The electoral road to salvation is long and slow…
What happened next
Obama got the gig, Made one effort at doing anything on climate, then gave up, quite like Bill Clinton and the BTU tax back in 1993.
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..
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..
Fourteen years ago, on this day, March 2, 2009, protestors blockade a coal plant
The blockade lasted nearly four hours, forming what organizers called the largest display of civil disobedience on the climate crisis in U.S. history.
Police were out in force, but no one was arrested.
The 99-year-old plant is responsible for an estimated one-third of the legislative branch’s greenhouse gas emissions. It no longer generates electricity for the legislative buildings but provides steam for heating and chilled water for cooling buildings within the Capitol Complex.
Environmental and climate celebrities led the protest action, including NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen, who released a video on YouTube in February urging people to join him March 2 at the demonstration to send a message to Congress and the President that, “We want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet.”
2009 Capitol Coal Plant protest – demonstrators blockade one of the five gates to the Capitol Power plant. March 2, 2009.http://www.capitolclimateaction.org“
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there is always ongoing effort to shut individual energy projects. And these can be dismissed as NIMBY. But it’s really important to fight those battles because how else are you gonna stop local madness and build the confidence, competence and credibility to stop the national and international madness?. And also to try to have an influence on national policy, obviously.
What I think we can learn from this
We need to remember and celebrate resistance not just dissent, but actual resistance.
Beyond Coal’s pivotal moment came at a meeting in Gracie Mansion about, of all things, education reform. Michael Bloomberg, the Wall Street savant-turned media mogul-turned New York City mayor, was looking for a new outlet for his private philanthropy. It quickly became clear that education reform would not be that outlet.
“It was a terrible meeting in every way, and Mike was angry,” recalls his longtime adviser, Kevin Sheekey. “I said: ‘Look, if you don’t like this idea, that’s fine. We’ll bring you another.’ He said: ‘No, I want another now.’”
As it happened, Sheekey had just eaten lunch with Carl Pope, who was starting a $50 million fundraising drive to expand Beyond Coal’s staff to 45 states. The cap-and-trade plan that Obama supported to cut carbon emissions had stalled in Congress, and the carbon tax that Bloomberg supported was going nowhere as well. Washington was gridlocked. But Pope had explained to Sheekey that shutting down coal plants at the state and local level could do even more for the climate—and have a huge impact on public health issues close to his boss’s heart.
“That’s a good idea,” Bloomberg told Sheekey. “We’ll just give Carl a check for the $50 million. Tell him to stop fundraising and get to work.”
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, February 26, 1998, yet more promises of clean coal were made in Australia, by eerie coincidence the world’s number one coal exporter…
RESEARCH laboratories where scientists will work to make Australian coal the “cleanest” in the world, will be opened by Premier Bob Carr today.
The Ian Stewart Wing of the chemical engineering laboratories at Newcastle University form part of the co-operative research centre for black coal utilisation.
The centre, partially government funded, was established in 1995 to carry out world class research to maximise the value and performance of Australian black coal resources
Anon. 1998. Tests for green coal. Daily Telegraph, 26 February.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
At a Federal level, Prime Minister John Howard was resolutely anti-climate action (even after extracting an amazingly generous deal at Kyoto). At the state level, New South Wales and Queensland wanted to export more and more coal, obviously.
The CSIRO, having been lukewarm/opposed to renewables for yonks, was talking up the prospects of “clean coal.”
What I think we can learn from this
Research and Development organisations are largely captured by powerful/rich actors, via various mechanisms that are not hard to understand but unless understood ‘in the round’ can be dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory’. New technologies find it very very hard to get traction…. (Mark Diesendorf has written extensively about this, by the way).
What happened next
Clean coal is still coming, just like full communism was under Brezhnev, and just like nuclear fusion is. Now, about that bridge you were interested in buying from me you know, the one in Sydney… I can bribe the official writing the tender documents, but I need some cash from you up front…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Forty two years ago, on this day, February, 25, 1981, Stan Collard, National Party senator (yes, you read that right) worried about climate change aloud, in parliament.
“Our steaming coal exports are mounting. I have no objection to that, except for one thing. I ask: Just how much further can we go with burning these masses of coal and pouring the pollutants, including carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere? One thing that we are not sure of, of course, is the ultimate greenhouse effect that it will have on this continent, maybe even in our lifetime. I think we must consider quite reasonably just where to cry halt to the burning of masses of steaming coal and where we can bring in one of the cleanest methods of power generation, that is, nuclear power generation, until something cleaner and better comes along. I reject the suggestion that the Government is lacking in its planning, but I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate.”
Eight years ago, on this day, February 14 , 2015, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband put aside their differences in order to focus on something they could all agree on: getting rid of unabated coal from our energy system. This level of agreement is almost unprecedented in the run-up to a general election and demonstrates the extent to which action to stop coal emissions has become a no-brainer. See more here.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Cameron, Miliband, and Clegg, all for various reasons, wanted to seem to be doing something on climate and coal was now largely friendless. It was being dug up in so few places that the employment implications were not there. So it was an easy win.
What I think we can learn from this
This sort of political bipartisanship, well tri-partisanship, will only happen if there’s a lot of public pressure, or an election coming, or if the issue can be circumscribed as “something must be done”, or a technology/sector is friendless enough to be beaten up.
What happened next
Cameron won the 2015 election outright and we started to see a rolling back of the weak climate actions that the Liberal Democrats had forced the Conservatives into – not that they’d ever been that hale and hearty to begin with
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Sixty-one years ago, on this day, January 21, 1960, 435 workers were buried alive when a mine in Coalbrook, Free State collapses. (South Africa)
In the words of scholar Alan Copley,
“At least 435 miners died when a large section of the mine collapsed on 21 January 1960. The Coalbrook Disaster can be attributed in large measure to the rise of the racist, capitalist apartheid state in South Africa after 1948. As the first major crisis of 1960 in South Africa, it dramatised and foreshadowed many of the debates that ensued during that year about the nature of the apartheid state. Key causes of the disaster were the exponential increase in demand for coal following the opening of the Taaibos power station in 1954 on the one hand, and the cumulative effects of unsound mine labour practices based on race on the other.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316..9 ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .
The context was Apartheid and profits squeeze, of course.
What I think we can learn from this
There is no such thing as free energy. Someone is going to be on the pointy-end. The less they look and sound like you, the easier it is for you to ignore their existence, their suffering.
Personal note – I remember in 1986 (or possibly 1987) being the cause of frustration and exasperation of a very smart fellow student at my posh school, who was a big fan of nuclear. When I talked about the dangers (this was just post-Chernobyl) he pointed to all the people who died digging up coal. I said that was different and irrelevant. He got irritated (rightly) and was told off by his father. My bad, Tim, my bad (which is not to say I am now pro-nuke).
What happened next
More apartheid, for decades. At a global level, it’s apartheid pure and simple. You might even call it, um, Global Apartheid.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Cobley, A. (2020) Powering Apartheid: The Coalbrook Mine Disaster of 1960, South African Historical Journal, 72:1, 80-97, DOI: 10.1080/02582473.2020.1728577
NEW South Wales Minerals Council CEO Nikki Williams (later to head up the Australian Coal Association) called on the industry “to get on the front foot in selling its sustainability message.” (see here)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was that Australia was in the grip of another awareness of its fragility and of serious trouble ahead. Mining companies were understandably looking to burnish their images with the usual bag of tricks – sponsorships of sports teams, tree planting and the like. Doing it as individual companies is expensive and open to easy sneering. Getting your trade association to do it helps you a) spread costs and b) gain more “respectability,” at least in the eyes who choose not to see what their eyes can see.
What I think we can learn from this
We live in a propaganda-ised society. A major function of trade associations is to pump out propaganda when it is needed, to deflect, slow or soften the actions of the state. See that Chomsky fella, or Alex Carey.
What happened next
Lots of propaganda. Lots of lobbying. The Rudd government spent two years faffing and selling its arse. Its “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” was a farce. Then the Gillard government had to try to pick up the pieces. Meanwhile, the emissions climbed and people got (rightly) cynical about how much politicians would prance and preen while doing nowt.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
On this day, December 20, 2007, then-opposition leader David Cameron gave a speech about clean coal in Beijing
“developing green coal will be a priority for a Conservative Government: we will do what it takes to make Britain a world leader in this crucial field.”
The context was –
Globally, there was an upsurge in concern about climate change. It was apparent that coal usage in the majority world was expanding rapidly. Don’t worry, carbon capture and storage will save the day…
In the UK, David Cameron was continuing his efforts to “de-toxify” the Conservative Party brand, by making big empty eco-modernisation promises like this one, which was also an attempt to one-up the Labour government of the day – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/uk_politics/7153139.stm
Why this matters?
The promises, oh, they are so shiny, so seductive. You’d love to go to sleep to those dulcet tones, wouldn’t you?
What happened next?
Once in office, Cameron did none of this. Of course.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 384ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
On this day, November 28, in 2008 someone broke into a coal-plant and shut down one of the turbines.
As the Guardian puts it –
The £12m defences of the most heavily guarded power station in Britain have been breached by a single person who, under the eyes of CCTV cameras, climbed two three-metre (10ft) razor-wired, electrified security fences, walked into the station and crashed a giant 500MW turbine before leaving a calling card reading “no new coal”. He walked out the same way and hopped back over the fence.
All power from the coal and oil-powered Kingsnorth station in Kent was halted for four hours, in which time it is thought the mystery saboteur’s actions reduced UK climate change emissions by 2%. Enough electricity to power a city the size of Bristol was lost.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 386ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
This was in the midst of wave of climate action (2006 to 2010), with coal power a significant focus. The third climate camp had happened there that summer.
Why this matters.
What’s that line by Tom Hardy in Inception “You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.”
