Category: Fossil fuels

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels Industry Associations technosalvationism United Kingdom

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

Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 4th, 1993,

London, Sunday It was difficult to see how global carbon dioxide emissions could be stabilised by 2000 unless governments implemented politically unacceptable decisions, the new chief executive of the World Coal Institute said last week.

But Dr Alex Toohey, a former director of Shell Coal International who took over as head of the WCI on Friday, said the move toward clean coal technologies would be stepped up in the next five years.

Noack, K. 1993. Emission Cuts A Hard Choice, Says Coal Chief. The Age, 4 October.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the fossil fuel lobbyists had managed to defeat a strong deal at the Rio Earth Summit in June 1992. But the issue clearly wasn’t going to go away because already a bunch of nations had ratified the treaty. And it was clear there was going to be a series of meetings about what to do. The coal industry was still largely helpless because none of the technological options was convincing to them, let alone to anyone else. And so, we see here some hand wringing and some indication of technology as a magic fix. Sprinkle the word “innovation”, bish bosh and you’re done.

What we learn is that the fossil fuel industry was helpless, and naked. The reason it’s fighting so hard now with CCS is because it doesn’t have anything else. 

What happened next? The World Coal Institute changed its name more than once. But you can’t really put that much lipstick on a pig and the emissions kept climbing

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, 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…

Categories
Australia Fossil fuels

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 5th, 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard was – this will shock you – a turd.

Howard at opening of WEC 

We are also a nation, which has been blessed by providence with very large reserves of energy. And I want to say something about the role that Australia has in mind and has executed over the years in relation to those reserves of energy. Australia is a strong and reliable supplier of energy. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal and it is a large exporter of LNG. We are very proud of the partnerships in energy that we have developed over the years with our friends and close partners in the Asian Pacific region.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Howard was now eight years into being Prime Minister. He had won all the big battles on environment, really, he had carved out a really good deal for Kyoto, and then pissed on it. He had stopped emissions trading, twice. True, he had been forced to take extra action to slow renewables, and he had even started talking about carbon capture and storage as a way to avoid any further talk of emissions reductions. 

He was surely feeling at this stage pretty damn pleased with himself, I’m quite sure. And so all of gloating at the World Energy Congress is to be expected really 

What we learn is that even when they’re supposed to maybe not boast too loud, for fear of alienating people, I guess if they know that they’re not alienating anyone important, and they’re sending a message that resonates with their core vote, then it’s okay. 

For a history of the World Energy Congress and what it was trying to achieve, see here.

What happened next Howard won the 2004 Federal election and why went on to cause more havoc and misery. And then Kevin Rudd came along and saved climate policy, Australia’s credibility and led us to the sunny upland of the land and milk and honey.  Oh yes. This definitely happened [subs please check this]. 

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, obv

Also on this day: 

 September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
Fossil fuels

April 1, 1857 – Bucharest gets oily illuminations

One hundred and sixty seven years ago, on this day, April 1st, 1857, Bucharest was the first city to be crude…

The contract began to be executed on April 1, 1857, when, by replacing the kidnapped oil with the products supplied by the Rafov refinery, “Bucharest became the first city in the world illuminated entirely with distilled crude oil.” https://www.worldrecordacademy.org/technology/worlds-first-oil-refinery-ploiesti-218277

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 286ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some city had to be the first to be lit by oil. And there’s lots of oil in that part of the world. So perhaps not surprising. 

What we learn was that before pipelines and supertankers it was location, location, location

What happened next: A couple of years later, Drake hit oil in Pennsylvania. It’s also important to remember that Burma oil had been going for quite some time by this stage, in South East Asia.

Ultimately, it would only be the first Oil Shock (1973) that meant oil for generating electricity started taking a dive.

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: 

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

April 1, 2001 – John Howard sucks up to George Bush on climate wrecking

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels United Kingdom

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Forty four years ago, on this day, December 11, 1979, there was a conference at the Royal Geographical Society on what might happen if we kept burning more coal. And gosh, climate change even got a mention. How farsighted of them

  • CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF UTILIZING MORE COAL, HELD AT THE ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM, ON 11-12 DECEMBER 1979

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in February – the UK’s John Mason had helped reduce momentum for increased activity on carbon dioxide build-up. In October 1978 an interdepartmental committee on climate change had been set up (by now its report was done, but its release was not certain – languishing in limbo (it would see daylight on February 11 1980).

There had also been an IEA report…

What I think we can learn from this

We knew, but we went ahead anyway, because, you know, maybe 19th century physics isn’t real…

See also speech to uranium institute.

What happened next

Coal kept getting dug up.

Mason changed his tune in 1988.

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 Fossil fuels Science Uncategorized United States of America

 July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 15, 1977, the New York Times ran a front page story that makes you just groan.  Oh, and by the way, coal use is up in the last year..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the National Academy of Science had been doing a two year investigation into weather and carbon dioxide and was about to release its report. And clearly a journalist at the Times had been given a tip off and was getting a kind of exclusive in first.

From the 50s some scientists had been saying “hey, carbon dioxide is going to be an issue,” and had slowly been able to build an epistemic community as Hart and Victor would have you call it.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew. It was, literally, front page news.

What happened next

In the mid-late 70s it all started to come together. It was then scuppered/slowed successfully between 1981 and 1985. And then with the scientific meeting in September 1985 at Villach, the push begins again.

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
Fossil fuels United States of America

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty five years ago, on this day, June 6, 1978, Exxon got told about the climate crisis to be caused by its product… We know this thanks to the hard work of the folks at Inside Climate News and Exxon Knew.

6 June 1978 PRESENTATION SHARED WITH EXXON MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE from Exxon Research and Engineering Science Advisor, James Black

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Exxon had been aware of the climate issue like anyone else for a long time. They were beginning to liaise with certain scientists, like Wally Broecker, to do some investigation of their own and to offer Exxon facilities, ships etc. as platforms from which useful data could be measured.

What I think we can learn from this. This isn’t necessarily an effort at silencing or cooptation (in fact, that would be a perverse reading). This is just a big company trying to figure out what’s going on.

What happened next

Of course, since then, Exxon has done pretty much everything within its power to block climate action, because that action would impinge on their profits.

The predictions their scientists made in the 1970s? Pretty good… https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

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 Denial Fossil fuels

November 13, 2008 – Coal industry tries to get some ‘love’

On this day, November 13, 2008, the Australian Coal Industry launches a propaganda (that’s what “public relations” is called when our official enemies do it) campaign, dangling the promise of “NewGenCoal.”

THE coal industry feels unloved. Its polling tells it Australians have no idea what, if anything, it is doing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions – and most say they’ve never heard of carbon capture and storage.

So the coalminers want to convert us. Today the Australian Coal Association launches a $1.5million ad campaign – and a $1million website – to tell us what it’s doing to develop what it calls “NewGenCoal”.

Association executive director Ralph Hillman predicted that carbon capture and storage would be commercially viable by 2017, and said the industry was investing $1 billion to ensure coal a future as a low-emission technology.

Colebatch, T. 2008. Coal industry reaches out for love. The Age, 13 November, p.3.

(Check how they put land-clearing and intensive agriculture AHEAD of fossil fuels!)

On this day the atmospheric PPM for carbon dioxide was roughly 385.

Now it is 419ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember just how much effort (you might even say energy) goes into trying to polish the turds…  How much the fossil fuel industry sector invests in trying to keep its legitimacy, and having people think well of it…

For an overview of Australian coal industry efforts, see https://theconversation.com/recycling-rules-carnival-of-coal-is-a-blast-from-the-pr-past-45819

What happened next?

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd played politics, failed to get his terrible legislation through. The climate wars. The ACA was wound up in 2013 or so I think, but the coal lobby did a reverse takeover of the Minerals Council of Australia.  My proof?  Scotty from Marketing and that lacquered lump…

Categories
Australia Fossil fuels Renewable energy

October 3, 2004 – John Howard revealed to have asked for fossil fuel CEOs to kill renewables. #auspol

On this day, October 3 in 2004, a journalist revealed that the Federal Government of Australia, led by John Howard, had had a meeting (invite-only) of top fossil fuel folks and asked for help in squishing renewable energy. 

“The Federal Government and fossil-fuel industry executives discussed ways to stifle growing investment in renewable energy projects at a secret meeting earlier this year.

Prime Minister John Howard called the meeting on May 6, five weeks before releasing the energy white paper on June 14.

The white paper favours massive investment in research to make fossil fuels cleaner, at the expense of schemes boosting growth in renewable energy.

Mr Howard called together the fossil-fuel-based Lower Emissions Technology Advisory Group to seek advice on ways to avoid extending the mandatory renewable energy targets scheme.”

Miller, C. 2004. PM called talks to derail renewable energy. The Age, 3 October

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/02/1096527990014.html

You can read the minutes here

https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WP56_8.pdf

Possibly the best example you could imagine of how state and corporate interests act together

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 374.63ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

All this talk about free markets. Yeah, right. State-managers gives favours (R&D, subsidies, tax-breaks etc) to those who can make party donations and arrange post-career sinecures NOW, not some potential future set of corporates.

What happened next?

Howard and the LNP continued to promote fossil fuels, at the expense of a) renewables and b) future generations.

Categories
Fossil fuels

 August 27, 1859 – The Oil Age begins. UPDATED TO BE a) accurate b) less Eurocentric

UPDATE – Drake was not the beginning. Two years previously, some Romaninans had been at it in the city of Ploiesti (h/t to Jonathan Schofield – @schofield).

Meanwhile, as @AmitavGhosh has pointed out

Wikipedia here – “home to one of the world’s oldest petroleum industries, with its first crude oil exports dating back to 1853”

But that’s only crude oil exports. You’ve also got this.

Yenangyaung (or Yenan Chaung) can be translated as ‘creek of stinking water’ and the fact that ‘yenan’ became the Burmese word for ‘oil’ gives a clue to what those early travellers witnessed. In 1755 George Baker and John North en route to King Alaungpaya’s capital, Shwebo, found “about 200 families who are chiefly employed in getting Earth-oil out of Pitts (sic)”. Forty years later, in 1795-96, Major Michael Symes was leading a delegation from the Governor-General of India to the Court of Ava at Amarapura and gave a more detailed account of the Yenangyaung riverside export point:

“…the celebrated wells of Petroleum which supply the whole empire (of Ava) and many parts of India, with that useful product were five miles to the east of this place….The mouth of the creek was crowded with large boats waiting to receive a lading of oil, and immense pyramids of earthen jars were raised in and around the village… The smell of oil was extremely offensive. We saw several thousand jars filled with it ranged along the bank. Some of these were continually breaking, and the contents mingling with the sand…”

When (not if) I get things wrong

a) please tell me

b) I will correct the record, without pretending I didn’t make the mitake.

On this day, August 27 in 1859 “Colonel” Drake hit oil

The Drake Well is a 69.5-foot-deep (21.2 m) oil well in Cherrytree Township, Venango County in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, the success of which sparked the first oil boom in the United States. The well is the centerpiece of the Drake Well Museum located 3 miles (5 km) south of Titusville.

Drilled by Edwin Drake in 1859, along the banks of Oil Creek, it is the first commercial oil well in the United States.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Well

[The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 286 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

The oil age begins… We have been doing this a long time.

What happened next?

You are living it.

Categories
Australia Coal Fossil fuels

June 18, 2008 – Carbon Capture and Storage is going to save Australia. Oh yes.

On this day, June 18, 2008, the Australian  Federal Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, introduced a Carbon Capture and Storage bill into the Australian parliament. [The draft legislation had been unveiled in May 2008]. See here for a good account of the introduced legislation.

Because, you know, carbon capture and storage is definitely a real response to a real problem, not a fantasy of techno-salvationism that will keep us from doing what we actually need to do.

The context is that the previous government, of John Howard, had tolerated loose talk of carbon capture and storage as a way of deflecting concerns about climate change. With the arrival of Kevin Rudd, from Queensland (where they dig up and burn a lotta coal), the CCS thing kicked into higher gear, with an alliance of the producers, the coal union (the CFMEU) and even a couple of NGOs (looking at you, WWF and the now-defunct Climate Institute).

Some of my earliest Conversation articles were about this stuff. This one, co-written with the wonderful Christopher Wright, is worth a look –

Recycling rules: carnival of coal is a blast from the PR past (August 2015)

Why this matters. 

Time and money we spend on CCS is time and money we don’t spend on retooling an economy and a society to use a LOT less.

But, also, CCS was our only shot, given that the world is going to continue to burn absurd amounts of fossil fuels.
Both these statements can be true at the same time. We’re toast.

What happened next?

CCS fell in a heap in Australia by the end of 2010.  It gets reheated occasionally, for political reasons. Chevron’s Gorgon facility is not working. Did I mention we’re toast?