The IPCC has published the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN). On Monday, the summary for policymakers of the SRREN has been approved by government representatives for IPCC member countries at the 11th Session of Working Group III co-chaired by Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
2011 IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources May 12th, 2011
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was renewable energy as a substitute for fossil fuels. Because of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide emissions had been spoken of for many years. There had been various mostly inadequate, all of them mostly inadequate, some of them entirely inadequate schemes to promote renewables.
Meanwhile, in 1990 the IPCC had delivered its First Assessment Report. Since then, it had delivered various other reports on mitigation technologies, etc, etc.
The specific context was that it was very clear that the global response to climate was going to be net zero. The Copenhagen deal accord, which was supposed to replace Kyoto, had been useless, and so if you were bothering to read in 2011 a report about the importance of renewable energy, well, good luck to you.
And of course, these reports don’t/can’t really anticipate non linear-growth and when renewables are going to kick in. So you have the over-supply of solar PV by Chinese factories. You have the enormous growth in offshore wind, and official reports about how long energy demand will continue to grow and how slow the uptake of renewables will be are always it seems overtaken by events.
What I think we can learn from this. We are a dumb species, for all our technology.
What happened next. Renewables finally kicked in in the 2020s. If you get a magnifying glass you might even see the impact on the Keeling Curve, the only measure that matters.
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.
– My question is directed to either the Minister for Science or the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I ask whether the Minister is aware that the solar energy report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources states:
There is no Australian energy policy and in the absence of any central direction to co-ordinate a search for alternatives, the complacency that currently exists will continue.
Is the Minister aware also that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Thomas, endorsed at least the first part of that statement this morning on the radio program AM? Does the Minister agree with that proposition? If not, is he able to indicate what is the energy policy of the Government?
Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP
-I shall take this question as I think it properly belongs in the area of responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources. I have not had the advantage of reading the report put down in the Senate yesterday by my friend and colleague, Senator Thomas. Therefore, I think it would be unfortunate if, not having read the report, I were to make any comment on it. However, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has drawn my attention to it, I shall look at it and certainly shall draw the honourable senator’s comments to the attention of my colleague in the other place . https://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770505_senate_30_s73/#subdebate-3-0
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that there had been interest in solar energy, especially in the aftermath of the first oil shock, ‘73-74 but that with the return of a Liberal National Government, some of that enthusiasm melted away.
The specific context was that there were lots of attempts at energy investigations and so on. (What’s interesting here is that thanks to what’s being said in Parliament, you can learn what is and isn’t being said on the radio, and to a lesser extent, the television and TV and radio are much harder things to research than newspapers.)
What I think we can learn from this is that when you have plentiful supplies of coal, investigating solar seems stupid and unfriendly to the incumbents, and people who are unfriendly to the incumbents tend not to prosper in our political systems.
What happened next. Solar energy advocates kept banging on, largely ignored. There was a petition in late ‘77. Solar only really took off in the 2010s onwards.
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 five years ago, on this day, April 22nd, 1971,
UTILIZATION OF SOLAR ENERGY-PROGRESS REPORT FARRINGTON DANIELS
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin: “Fifth, a whole new emphasis on the use of solar energy comes now from the widespread concern over pollution of our environment. Solar devices produce no pollution-chemical, radioactive, nor overall thermal-and under some circumstances could replace some of our power generators which now do produce pollutant carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, radioactivity and excessive waste heat.”
(Read April 22, 1971) Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 115, No. 6 (Dec. 30, 1971), pp. 490-501
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/985842
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the solar lobby had been talking about carbon dioxide for a while!
The specific context was that everyone was running around talking about energy supplies – and this is BEFORE the oil shock.
What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 60s, early 70s, solar energy proponents were pointing to carbon dioxide build up as a reason for advancing solar development as quickly as possible. It wasn’t always or ever their first argument, but it was in the mix.
What happened next: The environmentalists got contained, exhausted, and then the Oil Shock came and delivered the coup de grace.
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.
UK Introduced on 1 April 2002, the Renewables Obligation requires all electricity suppliers who supply electricity to end consumers to supply a set portion of their electricity from eligible renewables sources; a proportion that will increase each year until 2015 from a 3% requirement in 2002–2003, via 10.4% in 2010-2012 up to 15.4% by 2015–2016.
and
2002 MRET in Australia 1st Mandatory Renewable Energy Target established (following speech by Howard just before Kyoto)
The 2% to 0% target shenanigans – see Kent and Mercer 2006…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that from the 1970s scientists had been saying that continuing to burn coal (and gas and oil) for energy was going to lead to really bad outcomes and that therefore nuclear and renewables needed to be prioritised.
The specific context was that in the UK the Blair government was continuing to bank the emissions reductions from the “dash for gas” and do pretty much as little as possible on climate change. In Australia John Howard (Liberal Prime Minister) had slow-walked his 1997 (pre-Kyoto) promise of a renewables target.
What I think we can learn from this is that our political leaders don’t lead in any meaningful sense – they do what is convenient to their donors in the short term (next three years or so).
What happened next: Renewables continued to get not that much support in the UK – though that changed a bit in the 2010s – or rather, offshore wind took off. Howard continued to resist all growth in renewables as much as he could.
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.
Who are you – where did you grow up, what contact did you have with ‘nature’? (There’s good evidence to suggest that the main determinant of people getting properly switched on to environmental issues is unstructured play with minimal supervision in nature before age 11)
Hello! I’m Marianna Dudley, I’m an environmental historian. I started life in Brazil, spent some early years in Sweden, did most of my growing up in Cornwall, and now live in Bristol. I had a lot of contact with nature as a child: my uncle and aunt had a farm, and I spent a lot of time there watching lambs being born, running around the yard, annoying the sheepdogs, and poking around the pond. If not there, we’d be at the beach. Cornish beaches are unbeatable and I’m definitely happiest bobbing in the Atlantic just offshore of one.
2) A little about your academic background – undergrad what where why, ditto for masters and PhD
Like many History undergraduates, I opted for History because it was infinitely interesting and I didn’t have a career plan. I went to Warwick, because the department had a great reputation and I liked its image as an egalitarian, modern university (unaware at that point that EP Thompson had long ago seen the direction of travel to Warwick University Limited!); in my final year I happened to attend a guest lecture by David Nye, the American historian of energy, technology, and environment. It proved pivotal, introducing me to environmental history, which connected my love of nature and my academic interests. I looked for where I could study it further, which led me to Professor Peter Coates at the University of Bristol. During my Masters, Peter and Tim Cole received funding for a project researching Militarized Landscapes. I joined as PhD student, with Peter and Tim as my supervisors, and Chris Pearson (now at Liverpool) as postdoc showing me the ropes. It was a dream team! I loved the research and writing, and published my PhD thesis as a book shortly after I finished – An Environmental History of the UK Defence Estate, 1945 to the present.
3) In a nutshell (sorry!) what does your book argue, and where did it “come from” – what gaps in the previous understandings was it filling, what ‘myths’ is it overthrowing, or at the least complicating?
Electric Wind: An Energy History of Britain is the first academic history of British wind power, so it fills a substantial gap. It argues that the history of wind energy goes back much further than the modern wind farm, and is more diverse than you might expect. Wind energy has developed alongside, not counter to, other energy systems such as coal, oil, gas, and nuclear, and this has important implications today as we plan for a decarbonised energy system. It also argues that wind energy’s development has been contingent on national and international politics; and that particular ideas and ideologies shaped state and industry involvement. I want the book to show that attention to energy history can enliven current discussions of eg. net zero, which can be repetitive and fail to explore the potential to rethink energy systems along more equitable lines. I also hope it stands as a contribution to modern British history, as it argues that the rise of wind energy is a history of the nation as understood politically, socially, culturally and environmentally. These elements are just as important as the technology, so I am keen to ‘complicate’ top-down technocratic accounts!
4) What were your favourite and least favourite bits of the process? (Are you, like me, an archive monkey?)
I loved the research process for this book, partly because I thought about it for a long time in terms of an energy journey around Britain. It took me to some fascinating places. Like most historians, I love visiting archives, particularly local/regional archives – which I used a lot for this research. But I’m a true environmental historian in that I love field work too – pairing the document record with the landscape, reading the history and getting to know the place as two dimensions of the same inquiry. These are the two sides of historical research for me – the archive and the field. I loved exploring Orkney and the Outer Hebrides in this way for the book; I have a strong memory of driving around Lewis and Harris in a tiny hire car, stopping for roadside scallop baps (!) and swims at perfect sandy beaches en route to interviews with energy activists.
As for my least favourite bits of the process? It was frustrating at times to realise how little industry interest there seemingly was in the history of wind energy. It is, and has always been, a relentlessly forward-looking sector, and I hope this book will show why wind energy’s past is not only worth exploring, but also incredibly useful for shaking up how we think about energy, how it’s produced and who it is for.
5) Who should read it (well, obviously, everyone should) and why? How would it help us make sense of our current and near future dilemmas/trilemmas/quadlemmas?
I wrote this book for anyone with an interest in nature, climate change, landscape, and infrastructure! I try throughout the book to connect global issues of energy and climate with energy as it is experienced on the ground and in everyday life. There can be debilitating overwhelm when it comes to climate action, so I want the stories of communities who effected real change throughout the book to offer narratives of hope and determination. I’d love to get the book on the radar of politicians and policy-makers as it shows how much sustained, socially-engaged policy can achieve – the achievements of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in the post-Second World War period are a brilliant example of progressive infrastructural planning with social good at its heart. I was excited when Labour announced the GB Energy plans, but so far it hasn’t lived up to the hype. Does anyone have Ed Miliband’s address? I’d like to send him a copy! Apparently it has already been recommended to the Parliamentary Knowledge Foundation library, so that’s a great start.
6) What next for you? What’s the next project?
Electric Wind was the work of many years of research, so I’m wary of jumping straight into the next big project. I’m continuing to think about energy, particularly its cultural dimensions; and am interested in unpicking the different threads which fed into the emergent green political movement in Britain in the 1970s. So we’ll see where that takes me!
7) Anything else you’d like to say?
Thanks for the opportunity to tell you more about the book. As well as writing about energy and environment, I spend a lot of my time teaching it. I direct the MA Environmental Humanities programme at the University of Bristol, and am constantly amazed by the breadth of interests and experience that our students bring to the classroom. Join us! https://www.bristol.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/taught/ma-environmental-humanities/
“No bids were received by offshore wind developers due to what companies said were unrealistically low prices.
Afterwards, wind farm manufacturers said they held positive discussions with Claire Coutinho, the new Energy Security Secretary, but were left bewildered days later by a meeting with Graham Stuart, the Net Zero Minister, who appeared to play down the auction results.
His comments during a meeting on Tuesday [12 September 2023] left some attendees unsure whether the Government was committed to addressing the issues in next year’s auction, multiple sources said.
Oliver, M. 2023. “Industry on hold after auction flop spooks developers. Sunday Telegraph, September 17”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 376ppm. 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 offshore wind was the accidental success story of UK renewable energy policy. There was a de facto ban on on-shore wind, thanks to the government of David “cut the green crap” Cameron, so offshore began to look attractive….
The specific context was that by this time two years ago (god it feels like forever) the Sunak government had decided that pissing on the environment might be a vote winner.
What I think we can learn from this is that we are stumbling into some very nasty situations. With our eyes open. Oh well.
What happened next
There’s another auction – with results due in December or so (everything’s delayed at present).
Here’s Reform’s Richard Tice on the latest auction
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.
The same month, the Treasurer Peter Costello stated in a doorstop interview, ‘Well if you are asking me my view on wind farms, I think they are ugly, I wouldn’t want one in my street, I wouldn’t want one in my own back yard’
(Prest, 2007: 254)
Peter Costello, Press Conference 26 July 2006
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 hostility to renewable energy has a long history in Australia, dating back to the 1970s. Coal was king, and intended to stay that way.
What I think we can learn from this is that old white conservative men with brittle fragile egos and limited understanding of – well – everything – have delayed the “energy transition” to the point where it is impossible and everything is turning to very hot shit. Oh well.
What happened next – Costello didn’t “have the ticker” to challenge Howard for the top job. Renewables got some help under Labor of Rudd and Gillard, but nowhere near what was needed to push emissions down.
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, June 24th, 2010 Australian renewable energy target was tweaked to differentiate between large and small scale.
To promote large scale renewable generators, on 24 June 2010, there was an amendment to the RET by differentiating between large scale renewable energy target (LRET) such as wind farms, solar plants and geothermal facilities; and also small scale renewable energy target (SRET) such as solar panels and solar hot water systems.
Effendi and Courvisanos 2012 p 247
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the resistance to renewables under Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007) had given way to Labor “all of the above” ness.
What I think we can learn from this – is that our technocratic lords and masters are not nearly as smart as they think.
What happened next – renewables took a hit again under various Liberal administrations (2013-2022). While things are moving forward, well, once you’re behind the curve, good luck catching 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
Sun Day is a day of action on September 21, 2025, celebrating solar and wind power, and the movement to leave fossil fuels behind.
Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power on the planet – and gives us a chance to actually do something about the climate crisis. But fossil fuel billionaires are doing everything they can to shut it down.
We will build, rally, sing, and come together in the communities that we need to get laws changed and work done.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were fierce debates within America about what “paths” should be taken, nuclear, coal, solar, etc. And this is just a cracking cartoon that does a really useful piece of work in explaining what’s going 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.
