Category: United Kingdom

Categories
Canada Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom United States of America

October 27, 2002 – International CCS study tour begins

Twenty two years ago, on this day, October 27th, 2002, some people fly off to the US and Canada.

Report of DTI International Technology Service Mission to the USA and Canada from 27th October to 7th November 2002

Carbon dioxide capture and storage : report of DTI International technology Service Mission to the USA and Canada from 27th October to 7th November 2002 / Advanced Power Generation Technology Forum ; Mission leader Nick Otter.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that CCS had been climbing the agenda for a few years, especially since it looked like the political negotiations around the Kyoto process were going nowhere. So you know, maybe throw your eggs in the technology basket and there were always these opportunities for nice conferences and PowerPoint slides and fun dinners and schmoozing. So it goes.

What we learn is that there’s always a new technology that’s going to save us. And that those technologies need “selling.”

What happened next, CCS started climbing in the popularity stakes. The Americans were throwing money at it with FutureGen. And then, years later, the Europeans and the Brits said that they were going to throw money at it. And here we are 23 years later. And how much C02 was actually being saved? Or stored? 

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 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

October 27, 1990 – denialist letter published (demolished days later)

Thirty four years ago, on this day October 27th 1990, a stupid denialist’s letter is published, forcing the Met Office boss John Houghton to respond

Sir: You published a letter (27 October) from Mr Hilary Lawson in which he casts doubts on the integrity of scientists involved in the assessment of global climate change. Mr Lawson has made allegations of this kind before, in particular in his Equinox programme ”The Great Greenhouse Conspiracy” broadcast on Channel 4. But, as Vicky Hutchings points out in an article in the New Statesman and Society (26 September) in which she exposes the inaccuracies of the Equinox programme, Mr Lawson provides no evidence for his allegations.

As chairman of the Scientific Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), I can assure Mr Lawson the assessment was not ”dominated by those who were already in the pro-global warming camp” but by scientists chosen solely for their expertise; most of them (myself included) would refuse to be described as belonging to any particular camp.

About half the 400 scientists (from more than 30 countries) who worked on the scientific assessment assisted in the preparation of the draft documents, the other half reviewed them. Therefore virtually every scientist in the world who has made significant contributions to the science of global climate change had a part in the generation of the assessment and a wide range of other scientists were involved in its approval. Despite the many discussions and hard arguments which took place, none of the 100 or so present at the final meeting dissented from the final text.

The IPCC assessment concludes first that ”we are certain that increased emissions of greenhouse gases will result in additional warming of the earth’s surface”. It estimates, on the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow on a ”business as usual” scenario, that global temperature will rise by about 0.3C per decade during the next century with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5C. Even if the lower figure is taken, the rate of change is likely to be greater than that which has occured on Earth at any time since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago.

These estimates of future climate change are mainly based on the results of the numerical models which integrate our knowledge of the dynamics and physics of the whole climate system. Mr Lawson alleges that the models are unable to reproduce accurately the current climate, let alone predict the future.

In Mr Lawson’s Equinox programme, in order to make this point, he misleadingly showed some very poor results of a Meteorological Office climate model produced some years ago when climate modelling was in its infancy. Global modelling has developed a great deal since then and models are now able to describe current climate with a large amount of skill. They have also been applied with some success to reproducing the climates which occurred during the last ice age. Although a lot of further development is required, we are confident that useful projections of future change can be provided.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN T. HOUGHTON

Chief Executive

Meteorological Office

Bracknell, Berkshire

30 October

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some ridiculous idiotic documentary had been made, saying that it was all a conspiracy. These sorts of things are inevitable because a lot of people love their conspiracies and are frankly dickheads. This was also in the context of the first IPCC report coming out.

What we learn is that dickheads gonna dickhead. And that people like John Houghton at the Met Office are going to have to spend time unpicking this, and the problem is a classic Gish Gallop – by the time you’ve explained why it’s all bullshit, people have lost interest. Gish gallop as a technique keeps getting used because it’s so effective. It’s up there with “technology will save us.” Ah, all the different ways people enjoy being lied to….

 What happened next, Houghton had first been talking about climate in like 1966, I think at a British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting. Anyway, Houghton had a stellar career.

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 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

Categories
United Kingdom

October 26, 2023 – Happy One Year birthday, Energy Act

One year ago, on this day, October 26th, 2023,

The biggest piece of energy legislation in the UK’s history has become law today (Thursday 26 October), laying the foundations for an energy system fit for the future.

The Energy Act 2023 has received Royal Assent and will transform the UK’s energy system by strengthening energy security, supporting the delivery of net zero and ensuring household bills are affordable in the long-term.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 423ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was, a year ago today, the Energy Act finally got royal assent, much delayed, all singing, all dancing, going to deliver X, Y and Zed for renewables and CCS and so forth. And here we are a year later, and what’s happened, dot dot dot. 

mark to fill in that a couple of weeks before the date itself. We’ve had an election but then who the fuck knows. But anyway, the usual what happened next isn’t really doable there. 

What I think we can learn from this – the wheels grind slowly, don’t they?

What happens next

There is now, thanks to the Energy Act a NESO. Of course there is –

Energy ministers have tasked the newly established National Energy System Operator with creating a strategic spatial plan that maps where net-zero infrastructure such as renewables generation and storage should be located across the UK

Mace, M. 2024. UK to publish ‘spatial plan’ to map clean energy infrastructure and cut project waiting times. Edie, October 22 https://www.edie.net/uk-to-publish-spatial-plan-to-map-clean-energy-infrastructure-and-cut-project-waiting-times/ 

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 26, 1975 – “The Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins…

October 26, 2001 – BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage mooted

Categories
United Kingdom

October 25, 2006 – David Cameron launches “Can I have the Bill?” campaign for a Climate Act

Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 25th, 2006, opposition leader David Cameron launches “Can I have the Bill” campaign in London, a few week’s ahead of the Queen’s speech in which the Labour Government announced its Climate Change Bill.

If you go here you can see the Getty images I don’t have a licence for.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that David Cameron had become Conservative Party opposition leader the previous year simply by memorising an eight minute speech and not being David Davis or Ken Clark. One of his key tactics was to “detoxify” the Conservative brand by embracing soft green environmentalism so middle class people wouldn’t be quite as repelled and would feel less guilty about voting the way that they thought would benefit their own economic self interest. And so he’d hugged a husky and so forth. And now, he was trying to outflank the Labour and Liberal Democrats on climate ambition. 

We’d seen this before with Chris Puplick and Andrew Peacock in 1989-90 in Australia.

What I think we can learn from this is that these periods of competitive consensus exist. They tend not to last terribly long though. 

What happened next Cameron kept banging on about CCS. He had a wind turbine put on his roof to precisely no effect. And in 2008, the Climate Change Act became law. And there was an up of ambition from 60% to 80% emissions reductions by 2050. And of course, we’ve now said that we’re going to go to net zero, except we’re not. 

The thing to remember was that very, very few Conservatives voted against the Climate Change Act. But this is because most of them are both obedient and thick and didn’t understand the implications. And even if they did understand the implications, loyalty to your leader is far more important than any particular stand you might want to make. 

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 25, 1980 – Australian radio’s The Science Show talks about climate change…

October 25, 1982 – Exxon and “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium

October 25, 2000 – James Hansen writes a letter

October 25, 2000 – local authorities in England make #climate promises. Well, that went well… #NottinghamDeclaration

Categories
United Kingdom

October 21 1980 – Conference on “Climate and Offshore Energy Resources” in London

Forty four years ago, on this day, October 21st, 1980, a conference in London…

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26222336

A report on the conference ‘Climate and Offshore Energy Resources’, Royal Society, 21–23 October 1980

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva the previous year, but Bolin was still trying to shepherd stuff around CO2 build up through the scientific collaboration systems, with help from Mustafa Tolba. Bolin of course had been banging on about climate change and CO2 buildup since 1958. And Bolin had been at a 1969 conference at the Royal Society and here he was 10 years later. 

What we learn is that we knew, and that Bolin did his best.

What happened next. It was another 8 years before elite politicians had to start paying lip service to “the greenhouse effect.”

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 21, 1983 – “Changing Climate” report released

October 21, 1989 – Langkawi Declaration on environmental sustainability…

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Scotland United Kingdom

October 19, 2011 – First UK CCS competition fizzles out

Thirteen years ago, on this day, October 19th, 2011,

On 19th October, 2011, the Government terminated negotiations with the ScottishPower consortium as the Government considered it could not agree a deal that would represent value for money (NAO, 2012). The first CCS competition ended without any winner.

(Ko, 2018: 66)

Longannet scheme (Scotland, SSE) collapses – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/19/david-cameron-longannet-carbon-capture

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that BP had been interested in using CCS on one of its projects in 2005. proposed it. They pulled the plug in 2007, because Treasury wouldn’t comply. Then a CCS competition had been established in November 2007, Gordon Brown launched it at a WWF event. And the idea was it would be up and running within a couple of years. Ha ha. The competition dragged on and dragged on and dragged on, eventually whittled down to only one interested company. And they’d only been doing it because they were going to be given loads of money to keep the stranded assets afloat. And even then, that didn’t come off. But a second competition was already waiting in the wings.

What we learn is that CCS has a long, long history of failure in the UK, of broken promises of delayed and then ended schemes. Hopefully by now I can point to my book?

What happened next was that a second competition was set up as was the UKCCS Research Centre, some money for workshops and networking and so forth. And then the competition came undone in November 2015… And then, well, you should buy my book!!

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 19, 2002 – Doctors for the Environment Australia, becomes a thing.

October 19, 2010 – Greenpeace trolls ANZ Bank

Categories
Uncategorized United Kingdom

Switch from “not happening” to “geo-engineering” underway among Conservatives

The long-anticipated shift from “climate change is a leftie anti-progress hoax” to “it’s too late to do anything except geo-engineer the planet” is underway.

Speaking on the far-right television programme GB News on Wednesday 16th October s, former Conservative minister Jacob Rees-Mogg on Wednesday 16th October said the following

“When it comes to climate change, most of the public discourse surrounds hair shirt measures to cut emissions and phase out fossil fuels. But is this really where our focus ought to be?

“Perhaps, instead of being obsessed by futile attempts to stop climate change, a goal that’s looking increasingly out of reach, we should turn our attention to the virtues of green technologies and innovative developments to tackle some of the most practical and immediate challenges.”

[continues ad nauseam]

For once failing to meet the award-winning standards for fierce scrutiny, historical awareness and political balance for which GN News is globally respected [yes, that is SARCASM] the journalist in question failed to ask Rees-Mogg the following questions

a) Had he ever peddled climate skepticism (e.g. in a 2013 opinion piece in the Telegraph), despite his political hero Margaret Thatcher having made several ‘time to save the world’ speeches in 1988-1990

b) Had he tried to stop his mate Michael Gove in an (ultimately unsuccessful) effort to remove climate change from the National Curriculum.

c) Had he ever tried to stop his former boss, Prime Minister David Cameron from “cutting the green crap” like house insulation, greener transport etc, that would have led to lower bills (and probably lower emissions)

d) Is this not simply a classic ‘reverse-ferret’ – changing position so quickly that everyone will be too busy feeling their head spin to ask obvious questions about intelligence, integrity and the rest of it (that nobody expects from politicians anymore anyway).

The answers are, of course. Yes, no., no, and yes.

Sources on Rees-Mogg’s climate positions – Guardian, Big Issue, They Work For You, Desmog

This switch from “not happening” to “too late to do anything” is time-honoured, and across many issues. See this 1986 clip from the classic BBC sitcom Yes Prime Minister. “The standard Foreign Office four stage procedure”

It’s been happening around climate, intermittently, since the late 2000s.

Categories
Commonwealth Sea level rise United Kingdom

October 17, 1987 – CHOGM meeting at which Margaret Thatcher has climate “brought home to her”

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 17th, 1987, in Vancouver, a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting took place, and other leaders (especially the small island states) tried to bend UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s ear on the problem of climate change.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since 1985, scientists have been trying to warn politicians. Low lying nations and so forth were paying attention because they could see the writing on the wall or the waves washing over the seawall. And Thatcher by her own account, copped an earful at this Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. For all the good it did – it would be almost another year before she would give her speech at the Royal Society

What we learn is that you have to tell ideologues the same thing many many times before they’ll pay any attention. And God what a stupid species we are. 

What happened next? Yeah, you’ve got the explosion of interest in 1988.

In 1989, the CHOGM lot received Martin Holdgate’s report, which had been commissioned at Vancouver.

https://thecommonwealth.org/news/archive-holdgate-report-climate-change

Shridath Ramphal, then Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, who commissioned the report from an international expert group at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit in Vancouver, Canada, in 1987, described the threat of climate change in his foreword as “truly global in its implications”.

He said: “If the Earth is to warm by even the most modest of the various projections, there could be far reaching, long term implications for natural ecological systems, farming, the design of major energy and water projects and for low lying areas that could be affected by rising sea level.”

The Holdgate report called for a “major international initiative” to establish “global responsibilities” for preventing unmanageable rises in the world’s temperature. It also spelt out practical steps which poor and small countries like Guyana, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Pacific islands, could take to monitor their changing environment.

 You’ve got the November 1989 Male declaration about sea level rise. You then have the toothless 1992 UNFCCC (the climate treaty).

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 17, 1973 – the coup at the Australian Conservation Foundation

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?”

October 17, 2009 – Maldives cabinet meets underwater

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
Science Scientists United Kingdom

October 8, 1958 – “CO2 has begun to come home, hasn’t it?”

Sixty-six years ago today (October 8th, 1958) British meteorologist Gordon Manley wrote to his friend, steam engineer Guy Callendar, who had – for the past twenty-plus years had been banging on about carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere as a (or even the) factor affecting the climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year was happening. More people were coming on board with the carbon dioxide theory, Gilbert Plass, GER Deakin, Appleton, etc. And Manley was congratulating Guy Callendar bless. 

What we learn is that Guy Callendar was getting a little bit of recognition and was getting published still in journals like Tellus and so forth. But he wasn’t being carried through the streets on people’s shoulders, as perhaps he should have been. Such is the nature of humanity when the wrong person making the announcement, if you’re Miss Triggs. 

What we learn is that you can be right and not get the credit you deserve. That’s one of the oldest stories in the book. 

What happened next Callendar had a couple of more really astute observations in him about, for example, why theories aren’t popular, and so forth. And he died in 1964, 37 years to the day after Svante Arrhenius died. 

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

CP 1, Gordon Manley to Callendar, 8 October 1958, cited in Fleming, 2007

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…