Category: technosalvationism

Categories
Technophilia technosalvationism United Kingdom

October 8, 1964 – Party X and Party Y (techno and eco) – seminal article in New Scientist

Sixty years ago, on this day, October 8th, 1964,

 Nigel Calder’s article in New Scientist on 8 Oct 1964 (at the time of the 1964 general election). Calder’s article expressed dissatisfaction with the similar policies offered by the two main parties, and called for the creation of two very different political parties, X and Y. This seminal article basically espoused two different visions of the future: ‘Party X’ technocratic, ‘Party Y’ ‘ecological’. What is interesting about Calder’ s vision is how much of the vision for ‘Party Y’ was to become part of the early 1970s environmental message.

(Herring, 2001)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 320ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that awareness of environmental problems was growing. Whether it was Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, or the Buchanan report about traffic in cities. And it was clear that there were unmet political needs because both main parties were all about economic growth. And the proposal for a technocrat party and an ecological party as we would never call them was a sensible one. But there are simply too many cross cutting needs and myths. These are not the official lines as people see them, because people think they can have their cake and eat it. And for a certain amount of time you can, but eventually, you look down and you have an empty plate and a face full of food. You no longer have your cake.

What we learn is that these debates about technology “versus” ecology whatever, they go back. Well, they go back earlier than 1964. But they were expressed plainly in New Scientist in 1964.

What happened next? The article was, I’m told, influential in some circles, largely ignored more broadly.

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: 

October 8, 1959 – Shell says “nothing to see here” on carbon dioxide build-up

October 8, 1971 – Lord Kennet pushes back against Nature’s “John Maddox” on the greenhouse effect.

October 8, 1978 – The Times runs an “ice caps melting” story

October 8, 1988 – Aussie poet and activist Judith Wright in final speech, warns of environmental problems ahead…

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
technosalvationism United States of America

September 28, 2007 – Bush invokes “technology” to fix climate. Like morons everywhere.

Seventeen years ago, on this day, September 28th, 2007, George Bush showed what he was capable of. Again,

28 September 2007 Bush speech

We’ve identified a problem, let’s go solve it together. We will harness the power of technology. There is a way forward that will enable us to grow our economies and protect the environment, and that’s called technology. We’ll meet our energy needs. We’ll be good stewards of this environment. Achieving these goals will require a sustained effort over many decades. This problem isn’t going to be solved overnight. (Bush 2007)

(Scrase and Smith, 2009:707-8).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Bali meeting of the UNFCCC was impending. And there was a lot of pressure about getting a “Roadmap to Copenhagen.” On adaptation mitigation, technology transfer, a deal would be stuck at Copenhagen that was going to Save The World. And Bush had spent his time as president as a meat puppet for Dick Cheney and the oil companies. He was not in favour of any meaningful action on climate change because it might constrain his fossil fuel buddies. And so, when you can’t do full on denial what other fallbacks do you have other than a bit of lukewarm-ism, (“it’s not as bad as the hysterical activists are saying”) and of course, our old friend technology; technology will save the day. 

What we learn is that technology will not save the day. It’s one of the most reliable instruments for the opponents of meaningful climate action. 

What happened next? Bush stopped giving much of a shit about anything. And there is the famous so long from the world’s biggest polluter comment at the G7 meeting the following year. 

The Bali COP did start the gun on negotiations. And Copenhagen was a complete failure. Pretty much a complete failure. And Bush? Bush was just an asshole. 

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: 

September 28, 1997 – Australian denialist spouting tosh to his US mates.

September 28, 2000 – Liberal MP goes full cooker on Kyoto as threat to sovereignty.

September 28, 2008 – “Wake Up Freak Out” posted online

Categories
Academia Technophilia technosalvationism United States of America

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

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.

Also on this day: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice? 

Categories
Scientists technosalvationism United Kingdom

January 7, 2004 – geoengineering our way outa trouble?

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 7th, 2004,

Big ideas for reducing the impacts of climate change are being evaluated by an international line-up of leading scientists from the US, mainland Europe and the UK at a symposium in Cambridge this week. The meeting is being jointly hosted by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Cambridge-MIT Institute. The scientists are coming together to evaluate which large-scale bio-engineering, geo-engineering and chemical engineering ideas to combat global warming are worthy of further investigation, and which are best left on the drawing board. The symposium, called “Macro-engineering options for climate change management and mitigation” is at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge from 7-9 January.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/planet-sized-solutions-for-global-warming

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC Third Assessment Report had come out and the UK energy white paper had come out in February 2003 positing a 60% cut in emissions by 2050, and it was obvious that some big technological efforts were going to be required. The international negotiations were adrift with the Americans having pulled out of Kyoto, followed by the Australians. The IPCC was in the midst of writing its special report on CCS. So of course, a bunch of well-respected, high-powered, academics would get together and … spit ball about technological fantasies to save the world. 

What we can learn from this is that to really understand what’s going on, you do have to understand the context of what had gone before. And place yourself in the heads of organisers or speakers, without giving yourself information that they couldn’t have had, because the events hadn’t happened yet. 

What else can we can learn is that rather than criticise existing political and social arrangements, high-powered academics who are ultimately benefiting from existing social and political arrangements will dream up techno-fantasies, because to question the entire system would be to question their place in it, and no one gets career points for that. 

What happened next? The techno-fantasies started coming thicker and faster, and they’re with us now, 20 years later in full flight. Because we did nowt, boys and girls, about dealing with the social and political issues. 

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: 

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results 

Jan 7, 2013

Categories
technosalvationism United States of America

January 3, 2007 – Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, says Union of Concerned Scientists

Seventeen years ago, on this day, January 3rd, 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists released a damning report called “Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air” about ExxonMobil and its tactics…

And you can read a typically sane and not-unhinged response, which has aged so very well indeed, here. Or you could if it weren’t a mysteriously dead link, and seems to have been removed from the “website” of the nutjobs.

http://humanevents.com/2007/05/08/liberal-scientists-lead-jihad-against-globalwarming-skeptics/

Could it be that they have realised that it’s not a good look?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush Jr. had already been a massive pain in the ass on environment issues. Or, to be more accurate, he allowed the gang that was controlling him to run riot in a more slightly more subtle way than had happened under Reagan. And there had been repeated exposes and reports on the tactics and subterfuge used by Bush. This report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which had been set up in the tumult of the late 60s, was one among many. And probably had an eye on the fact that the negotiations in Bali in December of 2007, had been earmarked as creating “the Roadmap to Copenhagen.” There’s always a new roadmap path, etc. And they all prove to be delusions. 

What we can learn, you can expose, the emperor has been naked, you can pull back the curtain and show the guy who was screaming at you not to look at him. And it doesn’t change anything. Because the audience is just that – spectating. Only if we had active social movement organisations, capable of sustaining pressure and defending themselves against co-optation, repression and exhaustion might – and I underscore the word might – we have gotten somewhere. But we didn’t. And now we won’t. 

What happened next? Bush was replaced with Obama. Obama made one attempt to get through some pretty weak climate legislation, and then refused to spend any more political capital on the issue. But he made some fine speeches. So that’s alright 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 3, 1984 – US report on energy transition to combat climate released.

Jan 3, 1992 – Greenpeace vs POTUS on Climate Change

Categories
technosalvationism United Kingdom

December 22, 1759 – “What have ye done?”

Two hundred and sixty three years ago, on this day, December 22, 1759, 

Samuel Johnson published an essay that you should read – “What have ye done” in the Idler – and see my blog post too.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 280ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

 What have ye done, starts by talking of the high hopes of the Royal Society. Well, about them –

The nobility and intelligentsia, however, occasionally became critical and even constructive. John Eveelyn, a noted busybody and do-gooder and one of the founding members of the Royal Society, wrote a pamphlet in 1661, which was ordered to be published by Charles II, “Furnigofiuim, or the Inconvenience [page break] of Air and Smoke of London Dissipated; together with Some Remedies Humbly Proposed.”

 In 1686, Justel presented before the Philosophical Society “An account of an Engine that Consumes Smoke.” The suggestions made were lively and imaginative rather than practicable, but it is worthy pointing out that Justel’s smoke-consuming monster embodies a concept that has recently been emphasized by Professor Fritz Zwicky of Cal Tech.

(Carr, 1965: 34-5)

The context was that Samuel Johnson was having to knock out these sorts of essays with stunning regularity. I’ve not read a lot of Johnson but I think I have read all the essays in a collection that confirm this man was a stone-cold genius. Probably quite unpleasant, but stone cold genius.

What I think we can learn from this

 well if you take what Johnson says to heart and manage your expectations of changing the world downwards, maybe if we had all done that we wouldn’t be in this mess. 

[Biographical note – I don’t know where I first encountered mention of it but I think it was in when I was living in Bristol in 1996 or 7 because I remember borrowing a copy from the Bristol City Council library; I think it was in store and here we are.]

What happened next

Johnson appeared disguised as the late Robbie Coltrane in an episode of Blackadder the Third and it was freaking hilarious.

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

 Carr, D. (1965) The Breath of Life. New York WW. Norton & Company

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage technosalvationism United States of America

January 8, 2003 –  Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 8, 2003, the US business press reports on what we now call “carbon capture and storage”

“A potential solution to global warming could lie two miles deep, both underground and in the ocean.”

Global warming has been linked to emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the by-product of burning fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. So, some scientists are examining ways to curb the gaseous emissions: burying them underground or injecting them into the ocean.

The technology, known as carbon sequestration, is used by energy firms as an oil-recovery tool.

But in recent years, the Department of Energy has broadened its research into sequestration as a way to reduce emissions. And the energy industry has taken early steps toward using sequestration to capture emissions from power plants.

Even some environmentalists support carbon sequestration, although they generally object to the ocean-storage method. Partly because of environmental concerns about the ocean, government researchers are leaning toward underground storage as a preferred procedure.

Loftus, P. 2003. Energy Firms Bury Carbon Emissions. Wall Street Journal, 8 January.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that US President Bush, shortly after being awarded the Presidency by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, had reneged on a campaign promise to regulate carbon emissions and then pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol process (not that the US had ever been likely to ratify!).  Therefore he had need of technofixes so that people who wanted/needed to believe him but who also needed to pretend (including to themselves) that they cared about climate action, could sleep at night.

The whole CCS caravan was beginning to move – there had been a meeting in Regina, Canada in November 2002, and the IPCC was about to start ball rolling on its CCS special report. 

What I think we can learn from this

Stories of techno-salvation are very very important. They will have a lot of friends, a lot of inertia.  Turning those stories into reality, or exposing those stories is trickier, however. 

What happened next

Dumping carbon dioxide in the deep oceans is now legally a no-no. London Protocol etc.  Actual working CCS that doesn’t involve enhanced oil recovery? Still waiting…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.