Category: technosalvationism

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.