Category: Energy

Categories
CO2 Newsletter Energy Germany

March 3, 1980 – Amory Lovins at a workshop in Germany

On this day, 46 years ago, energy guru Amory Lovins was at a workshop in Germany.


As per the wonderful CO2 Newsletter of William Barbat –

From ‘ Efficient Energy presented Futures’, by Amory B, Lovins, at the Workshop on Energy/Climate Interactions, Munster, FRG, March 3, 1980, and pending publication with the Proceedings (Energy/Climate Interactions, W. Bach, et al., editors) by Reidel (Dordrecht, Netherlands)

“The integrated burn of fossil fuel, and the associated risk of global climatic change, can be minimized by economically efficient energy policies based on very efficient energy use and rapid deployment of appropriate renewable energy sources. Such policies can stabilize the rate of burning fossil fuel and gradually, over a half-century or so, reduce it to approximately zero. Economically and technically sophisticated recent studies in many industrialized countries have shown that it is cheaper, faster, and easier to increase national energy productivity by severalfold than to increase energy supply. If such studies are taken as an existence proof, a worldwide Western European material standard of living for 8 X 10 people could be maintained with today’s rate of world energy use ( 8 TW) or less, even with un-changed life-styles in the developed countries and complete industrialization of the developing countries. At these cost-effective levels of energy productivity, virtually all long-term energy needs can be met by appropriate renewable sources that are already available and that are significantly cheaper, faster, and otherwise more attractive than competing power stations and synthetic-fuel plants. Only major efficiency improvements and, secondarily, appropriate renewable sources can substantially change the timing of, or reduce the risk of CO2 problems.”

-Abstract.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been thinking about the likely consequences of the build-up of carbon dioxide from the early 1950s, and measuring its rise accurately from 1958.

The specific context was that by the mid-1970s,that measuring was turning to awareness/alarm and the desire to do something before the shituation got completely out of hand. This workshop happened in the aftermath of the First World Climate Conference, which had failed to be a rallying point.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew.

What happened next  We failed to do anything before the shituation got completely out of hand.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 3, 1980 – International Workshop on the energy climate Interactions in Germany

March 3, 1990 –  “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

March 3, 1990 – The Science Show on the “backlash to Greenhouse warnings”

Categories
Energy United States of America

November 11, 1965 – blackout!

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 11th,

On November 11, 1965 America received the first hint of what was to become a reality. On that night, there was a power failure. As a result, the entire Eastern Seaboard became dramatically aware of how dependent it had become on electrical energy. Shortly afterward, smaller blackouts and brownouts began to occur frequently.

(1978 teachers curriculum 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was grids are higgedy-piggedy things – kludges and palimpsests, and prone to overload…

The specific context was – accidents will happen…

What I think we can learn from this – sometimes a good blackout can concentrate people’s minds? Maybe… It can also stampede them back into outdated thinking and technologies…

What happened next – more blackouts at various points.  And rising emissions, obvs.

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.

Also on this day: 

November 11, 1963 – “Is man upsetting the weather?”

November 11, 1988 – IPCC finishes its first meeting

November 11, 1988 – Gore blames Reagan and Reaganites for loss of US leadership

Categories
Energy United States of America

October 20, 1970 – Memo about energy research required because power sector too fragmented

Fifty five years ago, on this day, October 20th, 1970, 

Dr Edward David memo to Nixon about federal government funding for energy research being necessary because power industry too fragmented. 

See Speth Ch 1 of They Knew

This isn’t the memo (I think), but gives the same flavour.

“On the other hand, in some cases projects are so large and the industry involved so fragmented that they are really unable to come to grips with big, expensive efforts where the risks are high and the payoff far in the future. Furthermore, many industries don’t have the R&D tradition. The tradition of R&D and the peculiar culture that surrounds it are necessary for its existence and its effectiveness. Some industries have not cultivated and have never had this tradition. It’s difficult and, indeed, almost impossible for them to begin R&D on a large scale successfully and without great waste of resources. In the next few years the nation is going to be faced with many problems concerning government action in certain R&D fields. The President decides whether a development is potentially so important that if industry doesn’t pick it up, then the Government must. He has made a number of those judgments, particularly in the environmental area. And we are doing a great deal of environmental research, for example, the unconventional automobile propulsion work at the National Air Pollution Control Administration. The question arises: Why should the Government be developing unconventional automobile engines why not the industry itself? Well, there is a delicate judgment there as to whether the Government ought to be doing such work. In this instance, we had judgments from many people both in and out of the industry that if the Government augmented the work, it would go forward a great deal more rapidly. I don’t see us taking over automotive R&D, however.”

Source – ED053968.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was there were (as always) fierce debates going on about the “energy mix” (coal, nuclear, oil etc etc) for the US. Each had its proponents and opponents, with their varying tactics. But doing any sort of co-ordination/planning or even research is problematic in fragmented/privately owned situations.

The specific context was Nixon’s government was aware of climate change (Moynihan memo and response) and had been warned about it in the August 1970 CEQ report. But it was not high on the agenda.

What I think we can learn from this – that fragmented is not good, but centralised isn’t perfect either. Look at the UK, which at this time had the Central Electricity Generating Board, an “opaque behemoth.” 

Whatever system you have, you need an active/engaged/irrepressible civil society, of which social movements are a subset. Absent that, some brand of Bolshevik/Hayekian is going to pick your pocket and loot your future.

What happened next – the Bolsheviks and Hayekians continued to pick pockets and loot futures. And the emissions kept climbing, regardless of various “eco-awakenings.”

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.

Also on this day: 

October 20, 1977 – Australian petition on solar energy and carbon dioxide build-up…

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

October 20, 1997 – Greenpeace tries to give John Howard solar panels

October 20, 2001 – Greenpeace nails Howard government over Kyoto and general climate assholery – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Energy

October 5, 2016 – “Energy ministers urged…” again

On this day nine years ago…

Policy uncertainty could cause essential investments to be deferred or distorted at a huge cost to consumers, business groups warn.

Major business organisations and energy users have urged federal and state governments to work cooperatively to map out a “strategic response to Australia’s energy transition and challenges” ahead of a meeting of energy ministers scheduled for Friday – warning that investment is at risk.

Murphy, K. 2016. Energy ministers urged to map out strategic response to renewables. The Guardian, 5 October.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/06/energy-groups-and-businesses-plead-for-strategic-response-before-ministers-meet

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was well, look at the previous day’s post. There’s all sorts of promises about getting hold of energy production, consumption, efficiency. You feel so powerful when you convene meetings. And then… what happens?

The specific context was that the Turnbull government was trying to pretend it would do something about climate change, to placate “green” Liberal voters.

What I think we can learn from this – “co-ordination problems” exist. So does incumbent power.

What happened next – The energy ministers all took that onboard, and Australia is now leading the way on emissions reductions. Oh yes.

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.

Also on this day: 

October 5, 1988 – Vice Presidential Debate and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’

October 5, 1989 – Enviro minister “Richo” warns Hawkie to save “Kakadu”

October 5, 1992 – Ignoreland hits the airwaves. #Neoliberalism

October 5, 2006 – Greenpeace sues Blair Government over shonky energy “consultation”

Categories
Australia Energy

October 4, 1990 – “Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 4th, 1990, the energy efficiency crew said the same thing again…

AUSTRALIA can reduce its contribution to global warming and improve its balance of payments with a major energy efficiency strategy, according to new research.

Three recent reports indicate that Australia is lagging behind other developed countries in energy efficiency and can improve performance dramatically to cut carbon dioxide output by up to 20 per cent by the year 2005.

Two of the reports say the target could be achieved with net energy savings of $6.2 billion a year by 2005, while the third says it could be done with no cost to the economy.

But a major national program would be required. This would see us use more public transport and switch to cars using only 4.5 to six litres of petrol per 100km (the average is now 12). All buildings would have to meet energy-efficient standards and higher road freight taxes would channel more freight to rail.

Our refrigerators could well have a 90-watts rating (as do the most fuel-efficient sold in the US) and not the 700-1,000 watts here.

The energy-efficiency plan is designed to save 42.6 per cent of energy in the residential sector, 54 per cent in the commercial sector, 38 per cent in transport and 23 per cent in manufacturing industry.

Two reports by Deni Greene, a Melbourne energy consultant – one for the Federal Environment Department, the other for all environment ministers – are at odds with the views of some that energy-saving measures cost too much.

Williams, G. 1990. Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October, p.19.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from 1988 onwards “the greenhouse effect” was big news. There were some who thought (rightly) that there were huge savings in emissions to be made from tightening up energy efficiency regulations. See for example March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored

The specific context was that the Business Council of Australia was already brewing (had produced?) a report that said doing anything about energy efficiency would crash the economy.

What I think we can learn from this – we couldn’t even do the simple stuff. We couldn’t even pick the low-hanging fruit. What on EARTH makes anyone believe we can do the really tricky stuff? Srsly?

What happened next – by 1992 the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process” was dead in the water- killed by Keating.

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.

Also on this day: 

October 4, 1957 – see, see – SPUTNIK!! – All Our Yesterdays

October 4, 1969 – “If we melt the Antarctic, our problems are solved because all of the ports of the world would vanish and the ocean will rise 200 feet.”

October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…

October 4, 1993 – Coal chief wringing his hands about “greenhouse,” promises new tech

Categories
Australia Energy

July 25, 1989 – “Mineral Fuel Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 25th, 1989, 

Mineral Fuels Alternatives and the Greenhouse Effect Seminar in Melbourne

Australian Institute of Metallurgy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was from 1988 – thanks in part to the domestic work of the “Greenhouse Project” (a collaboration of the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future) – Australian public debate about the greenhouse effect and what to do about it high.

The specific context was that debates about how to reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions were about what else besides coal (then dominant) might keep the lights on. Might it be natural gas?

What I think we can learn from this is that there were debates about replacing coal waaaaay back when.

What happened next – the coal lobby fought back (obvs) and even though the debate on natural gas continued, ultimately it was wind and solar that finally began eating into coal’s dominance, in the 2010s. Meanwhile, Australia’s per capita emissions remain staggeringly high, and the impacts of climate change are beginning to bite. Billions of cooked animals. What a species 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.

Also on this day: 

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

July 25, 1989 – Australian Environment Minister admits was blocked by Treasurer on emissions reduction target

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

Categories
Energy United Kingdom United States of America

July 19, 1979 – “a political view on C02”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1979, 

“The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide may be accelerated by President Carter’s new-found enthusiasm for synthetic fuel. But the atmospheric ‘crisis’ may come too slowly to bother the politicians, argues Michael Glantz.”

Glantz, M. A political view of CO2. Nature 280, 189–190 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/280189a0

A political view of CO2 | Nature

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that through the 1970s scientists got more interested in – and alarmed about – the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In February 1979 the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva.

The specific context was that in response to the second oil shock, plans for the US to make shale oil were on the front burner. People like Glantz were part of the move to say “whoa, before you get moving on this, have you thought about the carbon dioxide implications?”

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1970s, a moderately well-informed person would have known that there was a better-than-trivial chance of serious trouble ahead.

What happened next is that the better-than-trivial chance happened. Oh well.

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.

Also on this day: 

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

July 19, 1976 – , Scientist warns “ “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century, then we’ve had it.”

Categories
Energy United Kingdom

June 16, 2000 – Energy the Changing Climate report released

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 16th, 2000, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution released a report that turned out to be pivotal.

RCEP releases influential “Energy: The Changing Climate” report, advocating 60% reduction in emissions by 2050.  Also tacitly endorses Contraction and Convergence

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly zzzppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the UK government had been making weak promises about climate action since the late 1980s, and been able to keep them for two reasons – the UK was de-industrialising (manufacturing was heading off to China and India) and coal was being challenged as a supplier of electricity by gas, which – nominally at least – has a lower carbon intensity.  The Kyoto Protocol was still “alive” (this is before Bush was gifted the Whitehouse by his dad’s Supreme Court appointees).

The specific context was the science was pretty clear – did we really need the Third Assessment Report? Or the Fourth? The Fifth? Hallelujah…

What I think we can learn from this 

Good people at the RCEP had an impact on the “common sense views” of the policy networks. Twenty five years ago. And here we are.

What happened next   some people within Blair’s broader policy network pushed for increased ambition and action.  You can draw a not-bad line between this and the 2003 Energy White Paper.

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.

Also on this day: 

June 16, 1971 – “Ecology Action” formed in Sydney. – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1972 – David Bowie and (Five Years until) the End of the World. Also, Stockholm – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Energy

May 29, 1992- ANAO says it will look at DPIE’s energy management programme

I know, I know, hardly scintillating!

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 29th, 1992,

“On 29 May 1992, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) announced its intention to undertake an efficiency audit of DPIE’s energy management program. The audit was to consider the potential for improvement in the administration of the program and in the reporting of program performance. The auditors focussed on the administration of the interim greenhouse gas response initiatives with a view to contributing to efficiencies in the implementation of the NGRS’”

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION review of Audit Report No. 32 1992-93—an efficiency audit of the Implementation of an Interim Greenhouse Response

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was various “greenhouse” responses had been proposed. Most had been killed off in the committees and left to die by the wayside. Those that had survived the hazing and salami slicing needed to be looked at for “value for money” etc.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can’t teach an elephant to tapdance.

What happened next  On this particularly? I don’t know. But have a look at Australia’s response to climate change and tell me it hasn’t been catastrophically suicidal. Go on.

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.

Also on this day: 

May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

May 29, 2007 “Climate Clever” ad campaign in attempt to save John Howard – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Energy

April 13, 2007 – smart meters are gonna save us…

Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, 2007, Australian governments said smart-metering was just round the corner,

By April 2007 there was formal agreement by COAG to a national mandated rollout of electricity smart meters to begin by the end of 2008, in locations where an economic case could be made, as summarised in the 13th April 2007 COAG Meeting Communique:

‘‘COAG. . . endorsed a staged approach for the national mandated roll out of electricity smart meters to areas where benefits outweigh costs, as indicated by the results of the cost-benefit analysis which will be completed by the end of 2007.” [COAG (2007): 1]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone in Australia (okay, some people, but a little hyperbole is okay) was running around either actually caring or – more commonly – pretending to care about Saving The World.  In late 2006, as if a switch had been flicked, the issue had broken through, and by December even arch-blocker Prime Minister John Howard had been forced into a U-turn. So here we have various government types having to say they’re going to act. And “smart meters” are part of that whole neo-liberal efficiency discourse, that sorta sounds okay until you think how it comes up against Jevons Paradox, techno-failure and the use of technology to surveil populations.

What I think we can learn from this

Policies can be announced. Doesn’t mean they’re gonna get implemented.

What happened next

Fast forward to November 2024-

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has announced a final rule requiring smart meters to be deployed across the National Electricity Market (NEM) by 2030.  

This reform aims to modernise Australia’s energy system and accelerate the transition to renewable energy. 

Smart meters are essential for enabling a connected, efficient energy system and achieving net zero targets. 

The reforms include: 

  • faster smart meter deployment to help households and businesses access savings and energy benefits sooner 
  • improving network access to important power quality data for better network management, reduced costs and improved safety. 

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

(Lovell, 2017:103) Lovell, H. 2017. Mobile policies and policy streams: The case of smart metering policy in Australia. Geoforum, 81, pp.100-108.

Also on this day: 

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

April 13, 1992 – Denialist tosh – “The origins of the alleged scientific consensus”

April 13, 2011 – GE and others say Gillard is on right track