Category: United Kingdom

Categories
Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 9, 2004 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor lays into President over climate inaction

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 9th 2004, the UK Chief Scientific Advisor, David King lays into Bush Administration on climate inaction

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm

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

The context was that Bush had been doing sweet FA. And he had had the British scientist Robert Watson removed as chair of the IPCC – it’s hard to play Athens to their Sparta when they won’t even give you a bow….

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had been making the right noises about climate change but doing sweet FA, it was obvious that there was failure baked into the Kyoto process, which many at this point time were thinking was just dead. And that UNFCCC might be dead. And therefore emissions reductions were dead. China was galloping forward with its emissions, the US was not cutting it. And therefore, of course, you’re gonna speak out of school and hope for technofixes. 

What we learn is that chief scientific advisors can, on occasion, be troublesome priests. They tend to denounce someone over the water or across the border, rather than their own bosses. And when they are fed up with their own bosses, well, it’s more likely that they’ll quit and keep tight lips. For example, the Australian CSA Penny Sackett in February 2011. 

What happened next, King kept being Chief Scientific Adviser until 2007. Most notably, in 2023. Sir David King signed the letter in the aftermath of the acquittal of the Barclays nine, and is also being cited by Just Stop Oil in their standard powerpoint deck.

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: 

January 9, 1974 – The UK sets up a “Department of Energy”

Jan 9 1995 – “Efficiency” promises vs hated and feared regulation/taxation #Predatory Delay #auspol

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 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
Activism United Kingdom

December 19, 1988 – the launch of “Ark”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 19, 1988, celebrities get on board an Ark, for a star-studded launch…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was this exuberant ex-Greenpeace director (who had been a Daily Mirror hack) and had written in the early 70s about environmental depletion. He had gotten some money to put together a big manifesto. They had celebrities on board and it was going to be all-singing all-dancing. There were going to be little Arks, it was going to combine the business end, the social movement end the celebrity end – all singing all dancing all of the time.

And it did not come to pass

What I think we can learn from this

People get high on their own supply. People get drunk thinking that what needs to happen will therefore happen because it needs to happen. But that’s circular and it doesn’t reflect reality. But then reality is no fun.

What happened next

By July 1989 Ark had collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.

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
United Kingdom

December 17, 1973 – “Global warming will make nuclear war look like a fire cracker in your backyard.”

UPDATE – Ooops. I got this wrong. See here. (17 Dec 2023)

Fifty years ago today, on 17 December 1973 the physicist Mike Pentz (Open University, and Cambridge) gave a public talk warning of the trouble ahead…,

Compare with 14 and a half years later-

Anon, 1988. Scientists warn of devastation. Canberra Times, 2 July, p.6.

TORONTO, Friday (KRD).—Toronto scientists and policymakers from 46 nations say global damage from “greenhouse” warming and other man-made atmospheric changes may ultimately be second in magnitude only to the devastation of a nuclear war.

They also called on industrialised countries to tax fossil-fuel consumption to finance a fund to protect the atmosphere and drastically cut carbon-dioxide emissions.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the scientific consensus around carbon dioxide as a major problem was still in its early phases, but plenty of people could see real trouble ahead, on the basis of 19th century physics.

What we can learn

It was basic physics. You didn’t really need that big a crystal ball to figure it out.

What happened next

The British State faffed its way through the 1970s on this question. The first report, finally released in 1980 was a “maybe, yeah, nothing to see here” effort. Only in 1988 did the issue finally break through.

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
United Kingdom

December 14, 1992 – UK “releases “National programme on carbon dioxide emissions”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, December 14, 1992, UK Department for Environment releases “Climate Change: our national programme on C02 emissions.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420.4ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US had succeeded in weakening the climate treaty which the UK was clearly going to ratify. Meanwhile the “Our Common Inheritance” White Paper, published in 1990, meant that there had to be a national programme.

What I think we can learn from this is that promises of action are followed by promises that implementation will happen. Implementation plans are drawn up but then often nothing gets done…

What happened next

Nothing got done. There was a cola white paper. There was talk of carbon taxes and carbon pricing but really would be the early 2000s before any substantive climate action happened in the UK because emissions went down thanks to the switch from coal to gas and ongoing deindustrialisation of the UK.

And so while the numbers are going down, there’s no pressure to actually try to do anything.

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
United Kingdom

December 13, 1973 – Edward Heath announces Three Day Week

Fifty years ago, on this day, December 13, 1973, in the UK,

 Prime Minister Edward Heath announced a 3-day working week to ration electricity use. Parliament was recalled on January 9th 1974 to hear that a new Department of Energy was being set up to co-ordinate the government’s response. However, the crisis brought down the government the following month. The incoming Labour government, under Harold Wilson, settled the miners dispute, and the new Energy Secretary, Eric Varley, ended the 3-day week on March 7th 1974.

Mallaburn & Nick Eyre (2014)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that those troublesome miners had the defenceless and innocent government by the throat. Meanwhile the Arab oil embargo meant that oil prices were going through the roof. In an absence of secure supply what do you do to reduce demand?

What I think we can learn from this 

is that the year 1973 was pretty eventful for energy. And energy efficiency is still not a thing. And we are radically unprepared for the future.

What happened next

Heath went to the electorate in February 1974 asking “who runs Britain?” And the answer came “not you chum, not you.”

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 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
Carbon Capture and Storage Scientists United Kingdom

December 6, 2005 – CCS is our only hope, says Chief Scientist….

On this day 18 years ago (December 5, 2005), UK Chief Scientific Advisor David King said CCS or bust…

“Mankind’s only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change is burying CO2 emissions underground, says the UK’s chief scientist. Sir David King told the BBC carbon capture and storage technology was the only way forward as China and India would inevitably burn their cheap coal. This would be disastrous unless they were persuaded to put CO2 from power stations into porous rocks, he said. It is thought carbon capture and storage would add 10-15% to fuel bills. The process is currently being developed by an international consortium of energy firms. It involves removing carbon dioxide from emissions by one of three scientific methods. The carbon dioxide is then pumped at pressure into porous rocks, where it is expected to stay for 1,000 years or more. By then it is anticipated that carbon-free energy sources will have been developed. Professor King has often spoken of his deep concerns about climate change and has warned of a catastrophe if we keep emitting carbon at current levels. By 2030, China’s CO2 emissions from coal use alone are expected to have doubled. found it via –

Anon. (2005) Scientist hopes for CO2 storage. BBC, December 6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4501964.stm

References

PS Found this via Bowman J. & Juliette Addison (2008) Carbon capture and storage – “the only hope for mankind?”: an update, Law and Financial Markets Review, 2:6, 516-52

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

December 1, 2008 – Climate Change Committee fanboys carbon capture

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 1, 2008, the first report of the brand-spanking new “Committee on Climate Change” was released. It fanboys CCS.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Committee on Climate Change, which had been formally established by the Climate Change Act, but must have been appointing people, paying people, and generally being underway. This is its first report about reducing carbon emissions. And predictably enough since it’s the middle of the first competition on CCS there is a big fanboy section about carbon capture and storage. 

What I think we can learn from this is that CCS is very “logical” within our system, that there is mitigation deterrence to worry about, and that actual saving of carbon dioxide has not happened yet at any meaningful scale. And whether it will be remains to be seen. My money would be on “No”.

The Committee on Climate Change or the Climate Change Committee, as it wants to be called, has continued to produce really useful work ever since, though some (waves at Kevin Anderson) think it should have done much more holding-feet-to-the-fire…

What happened next

The CCS competition collapsed in 2011. Was replaced with another in 2012. It had the plug pulled in 2015. And here we are 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..