Category: United States of America

Categories
Coal United States of America

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Seven years ago, on this day, March 28th, 2017, the once and future President does another empty stunt.

28 March 2017 Trump signs exec order to ‘bring back coal’ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/trumps-order-on-energy-promises-coal-jobs-and-a-clean-environment-what-does-that-look-like

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

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 context was that Donald Trump had just enjoyed the biggliest inauguration crowd ever, and was doing the normal sorts of grift that conmen do, signing executive orders and bleating and ranting. 

 What we learn is that people want to believe them. By the time this post, which was drafted in December of 2023, is published, it will be clearer about whether Trump is indeed going to be the Republican nominee for president. It’s looking at the stage that he will be. But anything can happen.  (update – but hasn’t yet, Jan 27 2024).

What happened next, Trump did not bring back coal, because coal is in structural decline. And you can piss in the wind, and that seems to be enough for some people….

See also Obama’s vague shout out in 2008…

Also on this day: 

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

Categories
United States of America

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News report

Forty two years ago, on this day, March 25th 1982, there was network news coverage of “The Greenhouse Effect”.

The CBS Evening News for March 25, 1982 included a two minute and 50 second story by David Culhane on the greenhouse effect. Chemist Melvin Calvin raised the threat of global warming, Representative Al Gore called for further research, and James Kane of the Energy Department said there was no need for haste. 

(Sachsman, 2000)

You can see the clip here

Carbon Dioxide and Climate : The Greenhouse Effect hearings of the House Committee on Science and Technology, 97th Congress, March 25 1982 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002758682

See also https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6584134

See also the detailed account in Nathaniel Rich’s Losing Earth

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was becoming a real cause of concern among scientists and a very small band of civil servants and elected politicians who were in close touch with these scientists. There had already been hearings in 1980, led by Senator Paul Tsongas, who was communicating with scientists like Wally Broecker. And here was another set of hearings, this time within Congress, with Al Gore in the mix too.  It’s also happening just after the AAAS meeting in Washington, DC, with James Hansen and Herman Flohn expressing real concerns. It’s happening just as the Reagan administration, believe it or not, has got the “carbon dioxide science and consensus” meeting going. So the timing is good. 

What we learn is that within the policy subsystems, people are building meetings, reports, seminars, networks, fighting to edge the issue closer and closer to being “on the agenda.” You can say what you like about Al Gore – I’m sure much of it is true. But he has persisted. It’d be interesting to know what Roger Revelle thought of Gore’s efforts in the 80s. 

What happened next? There were more hearings in 84. And then in 85, the whole issue started to be turbo-charged, because of a meeting of scientists in Austria, in the city of Villach. And after that, they kept trying harder and harder. And yes, got it onto the agenda, in the summer of 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.

Also on this day: 

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
United States of America

March 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, March 20th, 1967, a solar energy advocate pointed to carbon dioxide build-up as a problem…

March 20 1967 Introductory address to Solar Energy Society conference in Tempe Arizona by Peter E Glazer – “In addition, concerns were emerging out of the nascent environmental movement about the potential for “certain new technologies” to “imperil the future welfare and safety of mankind.” 

The possibility of global warming caused by the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and problems stemming from the disposal of radioactive waste, constituted additional “limitations on the tremendously increased requirements expected for electrical power over the next century.”

Charles E Johnson 2015 (PhD thesis)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this stage, articles were appearing in mainstream newspapers, but also in specialist publications. The nuclear lobby was talking about climate change – see the Glenn Seaborg commencement address in San Diego in 1966. And so it’s not entirely surprising that an advocate of solar energy should pick up on the carbon dioxide problem and communicate it.

What we learn from this is that proponents of different energy systems besides digging up rocks, and oil and gas, were already talking about CO2 build-up. By the late 1960s it was appearing more prominently in scientific journals ( Philip Abelson, the editor of Science mentions it, for example). 

What happened next, solar energy didn’t get the kinds of investment that it needed. And it took another 50 years really before it became a serious player.  Because the species has a death wish, actually, that’s not accurate; I don’t think the species necessarily has a death wish. I think there are people within the species who are very comfortable getting rich and being rich, flogging fossil fuels, and they’re hardly inspired by the idea that the fossil fuels they’re flogging need to be rapidly phased down or phased out. This is hardly a controversial view. It’s just they’ve been doing it for a lot longer than we think perhaps.

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

Johnson, C. 2015. “Turn on the Sunshine”: A History of the Solar Future. PhD thesis, University of Washington

Also on this day: 

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

Categories
Arctic Science Scientists United States of America

March 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, March 19th, 1956, the question of possible climate change due to carbon dioxide build-up gets an airing (sorry) in the Washington Post.

19 March 1956 Washington Post story on Revelle’s predictions 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Roger Revelle as well as being a really good scientist was a really good political operator. He knew how to tell Senators interesting stories so that they would give big science, big money. And one of the stories Revelle was telling in ‘56, ahead of the impending International Geophysical Year was that carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere might cause some interesting physical effects. 

What we learn from this is that the idea of the independent scientists mucking around with his test tubes is a comforting myth, but only a myth. And already, by the end of the 40s, this was entirely obvious, given how the war had been one, Manhattan Project, Vannevar Bush, all of that stuff. 

What happened next? With some of the money, a tiny portion of the money that Revellel got, he hired Charles David Keeling to make fantastically accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2, giving us the Keeling Curve and evidence that yes, carbon dioxide was definitely building up in the atmosphere. Until that point this was not entirely certain, though it was strongly suspected. It’s always good to have proper evidence to back up your suspicions, isn’t it? 

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

Norman, L. 1956. Fumes Seen Warming Arctic Seas. The Washington Post and Times Herald; March 19,  pg. 3

Also on this day: 

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

Fifty two years ago, on this day, March 18th, 1971, a US investigative journalist digs up a weather modification scandal.

…in the jungles over North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.32 Under operation POPEYE, the Air Weather Service conducted secret cloud seeding operations to reduce traffic along portions of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Flying out of Udorn Air Base, Thailand without the knowledge of the Thai government or almost anyone else, but with the full and enthusiastic support of President Johnson,33 the AWS flew over 2,600 cloud seeding sorties and expended 47,000 silver iodide flares over a period of five years at an annual cost of approximately $3.6 million. 

In March 1971, nationally syndicated columnist Jack Anderson broke the story about Air Force rainmakers in Southeast Asia in the Washington post; several months later the Pentagon papers confirmed his information.

Jack Anderson, Washington Post (18 Mar 1971) Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn between 1967 and 1972 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American military machine had spent the last seven years trying to defeat a bunch of peasants sorry, that’s unfair to the North Vietnamese. And it had bombed the crap and defoliated the crap out of Vietnam and killed so, so many people and they also tried lots of weather modification too.

What we can learn from this is that weather and climate studies have been surprisingly, always been intimately related to military needs, whether it is forecasting the weather for the D-Day landings in 1944, or all sorts of demented schemes to send hurricanes at the “bad guys”. See James Rodger Fleming’s 2010 book Fixing the Sky.  

What happens next 

Nixon pulled the American troops out in ‘73, the Communists took over in 75. Vietnam became, after an economically ropey interlude, a prosperous and enormous nation. People forget how many people live there now…

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 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

Categories
Business Responses Denial United States of America

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2002, a major automaker decided to leave the denialist/predatory delay outfit the Global Climate Coalition.

DETROIT — Environmentalists are claiming victory following General Motors Corp.’s decision to quit a lobbying group that has led the opposition to a 1997 global warming treaty reached in Kyoto, Japan.

Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler Corp. withdrew earlier.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article/usa-general-motors-quits-global-warming-lobby-group

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that almost everything the Global Climate Coalition had fought for, had been won – a weakened initial treaty followed by the avoidance of any domestic carbon tax followed by the avoidance of the US being involved in Kyoto (beforehand by the Byrd-Hagel resolution, and then afterwards in March 2001, by George Dubya Bush‘s announcement of pulling out of Kyoto in contradiction of his election promise to regulate CO2.) 

What we learn from this is that culture wars can get out of hand. The Global Climate Coalition had done some things that were reputationally risky and dubious. And you often see corporations which have to worry a lot about their reputation with customers getting nervous when the gloves come off, and lobbying becomes a vicious public bloodsport. It is not because they are in any way “woke” – it’s just that they worry that they won’t be able to flog their product as easily if they are regarded as assholes by customers. 

What happened next is very shortly after this, thanks to other outfits leaving, I think Ford, and so forth, the Global Climate Coalition basically dissolved itself, declaring “mission accomplished.” 

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 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

March 15, 2019 – New Zealand school strike launched, called off.

Categories
Coal United States of America

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

Fifty years ago, on this day, March 12th, 1974, there was some usual “green” propaganda in the business press.

March 1974 “Clean coal” advert in Wall Street Journal

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/422541/1974-03-12-sco-wsj-cleaning-coal.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was an energy crisis going on. And therefore, more coal was in the offing (see President Nixon’s “Project Independence”) but that would come with serious acid rain issues because of all the sulphur. And therefore the people flogging it wanted to be able to say that they were taking measures to fix that, were responsible corporate citizens, et cetera, et cetera. Now this is a good decade before the term “greenwashing” was invented, but the idea was well and truly in place and had been for a long time. 

What we can learn from this is that long before the climate issue became salient, coal companies were very good at painting themselves as responsible and green.

What happened next? Clean Coal battles continued. Eventually in 1990. George HW Bush, under pressure from the Canadians, and some domestic interests, signed into law, a Clean Air Act 1990. That gave us the enthusiasm for carbon trading. 

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 12, 1963 – first scientific meeting about C02 build-up

March 12, 1963 – first ever carbon dioxide build-up conference

Categories
United States of America

March 10, 1988 – Congressional staff (go on a) retreat on Climate

Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 10th, 1988,

Congressional Staff Retreat on Climate Change, held at Airlie, Virginia, 10-11 March 1988 page 305 Abrahamson, D. (ed) 1989. The Challenge of Global Warming. Washington DC:  Natural Resources Defense Council

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been an intense period of rising concern about the climate issue through the 80s and especially since late 1985, and the pivotal Villach meeting hosted by UNEP, WMO and ICSU. And it was time to try and get a whole bunch of congressional staffers who cared about the issue, if not onto the same page, at least into the same chapter. And of course, this was in the days before mobile phones, let alone smartphones. So you could do a retreat and get some attention. So. clever move if you’re trying to sensitise a policy subsystem.  It “worked”.

What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs try to lay the groundwork for themselves. That takes money and credibility. Of course, you can’t do it really well as radical groups – it’s what liberal groups are supposed to be doing. And to be fair, they do do it to some extent, if only at a national level more than a local level. 

What happened next: Well, the timing was excellent because three months later in the middle of the very long, hot American Summer, and indeed drought, NASA scientist James Hansen gave his testimony to some senators (June 23, 1988). The Toronto conference happened, and gave us the Toronto Target. And suddenly, even Republican presidential hopeful George HW Bush was having to acknowledge the existence of the greenhouse effect, which, he said, he was going to combat with the White House Effect. (See also Grant Swinger).

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 10, 2010 – ABC chairman gives stupid speech to staff

March 10, 2012- RIP Sherry Rowland

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
United States of America

February 29, 1980 – Texaco and Exxon talk about setting up a greenhouse taskforce…

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 29th, 1980,

Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered “for consideration” the idea that “an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980. 

Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too

The minutes also show that the task force discussed a “potential area” for research and development that called for it to “‘Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.’ This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Exxon had known about the climate issue, and had been offering to do further research more recently than that. And obviously, outfits like Texaco and Exxon were in talks about what could be done; “Oh, I know, let’s set up a workshop”

What we learn

Corporates have their pressures and it is akin to that MacMillan Manoeuvre thing, but it’s also a necessary first step. So what we learn here is that oil companies were on it in the late 70s, early 80s. In the same period that Carter was talking about Global 2000.

And they didn’t speak up when Reagan came in and started backpedalling/ignoring this stuff (James Watt, Anne Gorsuch) because it helped them take their foot off the gas (or maybe, more accurately, put their foot on the gas).

 What happened next Exxon changed its tune. And then in 1988, began serious resistance to the climate issue.

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.