Twenty three years ago, on this day, September 29, 2000, George Bush, trying to shore up his vote among Republicans who cared about conserving a habitable planet (they did exist, back then), makes a promise that he wouldn’t keep.
“We will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Bush was in a tight race with Al Gore. Ralph Nader was taking votes maybe more from Gore than him, but Bush needed to make the right noises so that centrist Republicans and independents who cared about climate might consider voting for him. Bush’s daddy had, in 1988, made similar “I will act on the greenhouse effect” promises and then done fuck all.
What I think we can learn from this as per Nick Tomalin, “they lie they lie they lie,” especially at elections.
What happened next
When de facto president Cheney took office he shat all over this fantasised about building new power stations and pulled the US out of the Kyoto negotiations
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.
On this day seventy five years ago at an American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium the famed biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentioned carbon dioxide buildup as something to be aware of, in his pivotal article Circular Causal Systems in Ecology:
The problem of the constancy or variability of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere as a whole is a difficult one, owing to the large number of possible sources of purely local disturbance. The earlier data have been reviewed by Letts and Blake (1900) and, more recently, practically all the available information has been considered by Callendar (1940). … Meanwhile, it seems far more likely that the observed increment in the carbon dioxide of air at low levels in both Europe and eastern North America is due to changes in the biological mechanisms of the cycle rather than to an increase in industrial [[p. 228]] output. It is quite probable that the net effect of the spread of the technological cultures of the North Atlantic basin has been to decrease the photosynthetic efficiency of the land surfaces of the earth.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that English steam engineer Guy Callendar had been collating what carbon dioxide measurements existed, and said they were going up, in line with Svante Arrhenius’s late 19th century suggestion. But all this was very sketchy – precise measures were not yet a thing.
What we can learn – the biologists and ecologists (stocks and flows, flows and stocks) were paying attention.
What happened next – Evelyn Hutchinson mentioned it in a big 1955 US conference about resources and conservation – crickets. He also mentioned it to King Hubbert (him of the Peak) and so it ended up in Hubbert’s Energy Resources report in 1962…
Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14, 1993, the New York Times reports on industry efforts to intimidate scientists into shutting up.
As the Clinton Administration prepares to announce in the next few weeks a plan for controlling waste industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, conservatives and industry groups have mounted a renewed assault on the idea that global warming is a serious and possibly catastrophic threat.
Stevens, W. 1993. Scientists Confront Renewed Backlash on Global Warming. New York Times, September 14.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Clinton had already lost the BTU energy tax battle and was trying to recover some reputation by proposing other forms of CO2 legislation. But crucially those members of the coalition that had defeated the BTU were not downing weapons, they were up for another fight, to consolidate the break, as they say in tennis…
What I think we can learn from this is that at-will lose the opponents of action are gonna keep coming at you. And they learn from both their defeats and victories…
What happened next
The industry goons’ next famous victory was rendering Kyoto meaningless before it even happened.
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.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, September 13, 1976, a major US news network did a story on climate change.
“On September 13, 1976, ABC’s Jules Bergman did a two minute 10 second story on a National Academy of Sciences committee report on the damage done by fluorocarbons (from aerosol spray cans) to the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. Like most fluorocarbon/ ozone stories, this one cited the medical dangers of increased skin cancers, but in this case, the committee said that the most dangerous result might be a warming of the earth’s poles.”
Sachsman, 2000 The Role of Mass Media in Shaping Perceptions and Awareness of Environmental Issues
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that journalists were, by 1976. very sensitised to the climate issue. There was the prolonged drought in the United Kingdom. Stephen Schneider had released “the Genesis Strategy,” and had made various appearances on the Johnny Carson Show. So getting the climate issue into a discussion of ozone was not that much of a stretch.
What I think we can learn from this is that decent journalists will give you a tolerably accurate version of the truth. You may need to reframe some of the factoids, but especially if it’s the business press, you will more or less be able to figure what’s going on. For all the good it will do you.
We have known for 50 years that there was serious trouble ahead – longer in fact, but really from the early mid 70s both the theory and the evidence were coming together… And here we are.
What happened next
In 1977 the National Academy of Science released its report. George Brown managed to Shepherd the climate protection act or whatever it was called into law Carter signed this time next year ear and there was a flurry of newspaper articles and presumably television reports about the dangers of continuing to rely on coal and here we are.
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.
Seventy six years ago, on this day, September 9, 1947, the communist paper the Daily Worker e takes a look at what is going on.
Daily Worker 9 Sept 1947 LONG BEFORE THE A-BOMB fell scientists talked and wrote about the possible use of nuclear energy. They envisioned steamboats crossing the Atlantic, powered by the atomic energy from a spoonful of water. They discussed ways of melting the polar ice-caps and changing world climate. They wrote of creating new lakes for irrigating and fructifying the deserts
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in the aftermath of World War II, which had been ended with a couple of nuclear bombs – the second of which was most definitely gratuitous (as was the final air raid on Tokyo) the dreams of power beyond imagining were real or looked like they could be realised. The daily worker communist newspaper reminds us that shaping the planet to meet human needs and once the Promethean dream seemed to be within reach.
What I think we can learn from this is that humans have dreamt of changing the planet advertently and with forethought but what we have ended up with instead is inadvertent weather and climate modification as per the warnings of Captain Orville in 1957-58.
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 amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was a campaign of nonviolent direct action and resistance had culminated in this.
What I think we can learn from this is that campaigns of non-violent direct action but do not always lead to a victory with changes in the law or the ways that the law is is enforced but direct action in and of itself only a tactical set of behaviours but may also have deeper moral or political implications and consequences. But there’s also the question of just getting s*** done
What happened next I don’t know. I should see if the lobster people won – in the long-term or were they shat upon?
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.
Sixteen years ago, on this day, September 6, 2007, some American congressmen hold a hearing about what might be done…
2007 “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing
As Congress turns its eye toward global warming legislation this fall, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will host Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, the CEO of American Electric Power, and other experts for a hearing exploring how to maintain coal as part of the energy mix for America and the world, while avoiding dangerous global warming. Chairman Markey and the rest of the Select Committee will learn about advanced coal technologies like carbon capture and storage, and how a framework for cutting emissions could affect the development and deployment of this technology and the future of coal-fired power plants.
WHAT: “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing
WHERE: 2172 Rayburn House Office Building and on the web at globalwarming.house.gov
WHEN: Sept 6, 2007, 9:30 AM
WHO:
Governor Dave Freudenthal, Wyoming
Michael Morris, Chairman and CEO, American Electric Power
Carl Bauer, Director, Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory
David Hawkins, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center
Robert Sussman, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP
Stuart Dalton, Director for the Generation Sector, Electric Power Research Institute
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the European Union had started an Emissions Trading Scheme. There was a regional scheme in the United States with if I recall rightly seven or eight north-eastern states and the idea and expectation was that whoever became President in 2008 there would be space for a national scheme potentially. And therefore these sorts of “what if, what shape” events were being held in what MSA users would call the policy stream.
What I think we can learn from this is that people anticipate the near future and want to be ready for it so they can get rich. And that’s what so much of carbon pricing has been about – not actually reducing emissions, because if you wanted to reduce emissions you would do different things and you would have to start doing them now rather than letting the so-called market which you’re busy creating decide.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, August 28, 2003, the Environmental Persecution Agency says “protecting the environment is not our remit. Now go away” (I paraphrase, but only lightly).
2003 August 28, 2003: EPA Rules that Carbon Dioxide is Not a Pollutant
The Environmental Protection Agency rules that carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming, cannot be regulated as a pollutant. EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant writes in his 12-page decision, “Because the [Clean Air Act] does not authorize regulation to address climate change, it follows that [carbon dioxide] and other [greenhouse gases], as such, are not air pollutants.” His ruling reverses the position taken by the Clinton administration in 1998. Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, is pleased with the decision. “Why would you regulate a pollutant that is an inert gas that is vital to plant photosynthesis and that people exhale when they breathe? That’s not a pollutant,” he says. Melissa Carey, a climate policy specialist for Environmental Defense, disagrees. “Refusing to call greenhouse-gas emissions a pollutant is like refusing to say that smoking causes lung cancer. The Earth is round. Elvis is dead. Climate change is happening.” [Knight Ridder, 8/29/2003]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in September 2000, on the campaign trail George Bush had said that carbon dioxide emissions would be regulated. He then pulled the US out of Kyoto Protocol negotiations, and started talking about technology and technological fixes such as carbon capture and storage.
The EPA which had been created under President Nixon was supposed to have responsibility for pollutants so arguing carbon dioxide was not a pollutant was a good way of denying any responsibility which is what you would expect from a Bush Appointee.
What I think we can learn from this is that the Republican war against science and against the environment has changed shape in the 80s. Then it was naked and gleeful, but they learnt that that was costly and provoked their enemies. So instead they turned to this sort of stunt of tying their own hands so that they did not have a legal obligation to take action.
What happened next
Various state governments sued. The EPA it went to the Supreme Court. And in 2007 Supreme Court decided that carbon dioxide was indeed a pollutant…
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.
Fifty five years ago, on this day, August 19, 1968, a major US news magazine asks the right question…
August 19 1968. “Is Man Spoiling the Weather? What the Experts Say,” U.S. News and World Report, August 19, 1968, p. 61.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that further work by US scientists was beginning to look more closely at carbon dioxide. There have been reports by the National Academy of Science and the beginnings of more confident minority statements. But this time and even much later the article was still, understandably, couched in a “will we die in fire or will we die in ice?” kind of thing.
What I think we can learn from this nothing much except that the media was talking about this for a long time.
What happened next
1970 is the year that you really start to say carbon dioxide is emerging as a prominent member of the various threats that people are putting forward as long-term problems.
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.
Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 16, 2002, The Times Newspaper reports
Conservative lobbyists in the US funded by Esso have urged President Bush to derail the Earth summit in Johannesburg because it is anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western.
Browne, A. 2002. USA: Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit ,The Times, August 16
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was it was 10 years since Rio and the United Nations does like a good round number conference. George Dubya Bush had recently been doing some talk about “clean skies” and technology, this and that.
And the anti Climate Lobby groups just wanted to make sure that he didn’t slip. So this was laying down some “suppressing fire” and to force proponents of action to expend energy in simply keeping climate change (literally) ‘on the agenda.’
What I think we can learn from this
What’s interesting, what we can learn is, this is what they do. They’re constantly laying down “suppressing fire”, which didn’t really work as well as they’d hoped. But it makes you feel good when you do it, keeps you in a job, makes you test your ammo, and your guns, so why not? I can say the language is extraordinary, but nothing special. They do genuinely frame it as liberty and freedom and democracy versus the evil globalist at least for public consumption.
What happened next
Climate stayed on the agenda. Bush stayed a prick. The carbon dioxide kept accumulating.
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.
