Category: United States of America

Categories
Air Pollution Canada United States of America

January 11, 1909 – Boundary Object(ions).

One hundred and sixteen years ago, on this day, January 11th, 1909, a deal on international pollution gets inked.,

Since early in this century the Consolidated Mining-and Smelting Company of Canada, Ltd., has operated a smelter for refining lead and zinc at Trail, B.C., in the Columbia River Valley. The plant is seven miles (eleven miles along the river channel) north of the international boundary line between Canada and the United States. As the capacity of the plant increased through the years, its emissions of SO2 increased correspondingly. Between 1924 and 1926 the amount doubled, and beginning in 1925 damage to crops in the Columbia River Valley south of the border became serious enough for the United States to request indemnity and corrective action.

The claim for damages was referred in 1928 to the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, under Article IX of the Convention of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain.’ 

page 23-4 of Neiburger, Morris. (1973). International Aspects of Air Pollution. Stanford Journal of International Studies, 8, 16-30. 

Boundary Waters and Questions Arising along the Boundary with Canada, January 11 , 19o9, art. IX, 36 Stat. 2448, 2452 [9igog T.S. 548

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 299ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US and Great Britain, who had fought various wars against each other and were apparently close again in 15 years before this, signe an agreement about boundary issues. This treaty that was invoked much later, 15 years later, because of a giant Canadian smelter causing environmental problems in the US. Now this is really obviously very obscure, and I only found it via a Google Scholar search for “January 11” and “greenhouse effect”. But what it tells us, what we learn, is that trans boundary air pollution has been on the agenda in the courts, etc, since, well, for 100 years, at least, 

What happened next? Well, I didn’t know how that was resolved. I do know that in 1971 the Nixon government was thinking about imposing a tax on sulfur emissions, and of course, emissions trading, using the example of The Clean Air Act of 1990 has held us up for a long time as a really small policy solution to much bigger, transformative 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.

Also on this day: 

Jan 11, 1964 -: The Merchants of Doubt have work to do

January 11, 1970 – A new Ice Age on its way?

January 11, 2010 – Bad news study about trees and the warming Arctic…

Categories
United States of America

January 4, 2005 – Senator James Inhofe exemplifies denialist bullshit

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 4th, 2005, Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) was at it again…

To cite one of innumerable examples – provided by realclimate.org – during a speech given at the opening senate session on January 4, 2005, Inhofe said: “we are (…) in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age”, which was a reference to the novelist Michael Crichton and contradicts all published scientific papers, including the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report, which states that human activities are having a significant influence on our changing climate.

http://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/hall_of_shame

Senator Inhofe on Climate Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, after a brief period of agreement, largely that the greenhouse effect was a serious issue, the Republican Party had by the early 90s fallen largely into step with the fossil fuel and industrial interests it used to fully represent, and said that this was another liberal hoax.

You can read about the ways that the culture war started in the late Ross Gelbspan’s two books, The Heat Is On: The High Stakes Battle over Earth’s Threatened Climate, and then later The Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis–And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster

What I think we can learn from this is that old white men have a heft their words, no matter how demented are given far more credence because of their positions, often

What happened next

Inhofe kept being Inhofe, until he died in July 2024. The emissions kept climbing and in and our fate is sealed. To be honest, it was probably sealed already before 20 years ago,

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 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

January 4, 1982 – Global 2000 Report updated
Categories
United States of America

January 1, 1970 – President Nixon says 1970s is the critical environmental decade – “It is literally now or never.”

Fifty five years ago, on this day, January 1st, 1970, President Richard Nixon released a statement about the National Environmental Policy Act.

IT IS particularly fitting that my first official act in this new decade is to approve the National Environmental Policy Act.

The past year has seen the creation of a President’s Cabinet committee on environmental quality,1 and we have devoted many hours to the pressing problems of pollution control, airport location, wilderness preservation, highway construction, and population trends.

1The Environmental Quality Council, established May 29, 1969, by Executive Order 11472 and renamed the Cabinet Committee on the Environment on March 5, 1970, by Executive Order 11514.

By my participation in these efforts I have become further convinced that the 1970’s absolutely must be the years when America pays its debt to the past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters, and our living environment. It is literally now or never.  https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-about-the-national-environmental-policy-act-1969

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the Sixties there had been growing alarm at “localised” forms of pollution (air, water etc).  The climate issue was there in the background, slowly growing, as demonstrated by many posts on this site.  By 1968 the global problems – of population growth, resource use and air pollution – were becoming common knowledge.  There had been repeated efforts to get legislation, at a national level. Finally in 1969 these efforts bore fruit.  Meanwhile, Nixon was trying to use environmental problems to get the Europeans talking about, well, anything except Vietnam.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians will say whatever is convenient, and people who want to believe will believe.

What happened next

1970 also saw the Council on Environmental Quality’s first report (with a climate chapter, written by Gordon MacDonald).  The first big wave of global “eco-concern” basically peaked in 1972 with the Stockholm Conerence on the Human Environment.  The 1970s were not the decade Nixon said they needed to be. Oops.

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 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
Media Science Scientists United States of America

December 29, 1972 – Schneider meets Sullivan

Fifty two years ago, on this day, December 29th, 1972,

In Baltimore in December 1972 I gave a talk on the issue of human weather control to the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). AAAS meetings are internationally known because they bring together research scientists and policy makers to discuss the societal implications of new knowledge…. After speaking for half an hour or so, on how various kinds of human activities could change the climate, I concluded that, unfortunately, only a relatively few people were aware of the possibilities. I then quipped: “Nowadays, everybody is doing something with the weather, but nobody is talking about it.”

At the front of the audience, a distinguished-looking gentleman was taking notes: he turned out to be the doyen of all science writers, Walter Sullivan of the New York Times….

Sullivan, W. 1972. Goals for US Urged on Weather Control. New York Times, Dec 29, p.50.

(Schneider, 1989: 200)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Stephen Schneider is perhaps being a little naive here, because he’d already made headlines the previous year, thanks to a paper that he had co-written that had talked about the possibility of an ice age thanks to all the dust and smoke that was being put up. That paper turned out to be wrong and was used as a club by denialists to hit Schneider over the head with it for the rest of his life. Because that’s who they are. As for Sullivan, he had been aware of the CO2 possibility at the latest 1961 but much more likely, by 1957; he had after all written a book about the International Geophysical Year. 

What we learn is that by the early 1970s carbon dioxide buildup as a problem was getting more attention. There had been an article earlier the same year in May I want to say 1972 in The New York Times. There was of course by now, the United Nations Environment Program setting up shop. 

What happened next: The carbon dioxide build-up issue kept getting random reports all through the 1970s. Only in 1988 did it finally punch 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.

Also on this day: 

December 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

Categories
Energy United States of America

December 23, 1973 – Solar Patent issued..

Fifty one years ago, on this day, December 23rd, 1973,

5. P. E. Glaser, “Method and Apparatus for Converting Solar Radiation to Electrical Power,” United States Patent 3,781,647, December 23, 1973.

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 Glaser had been aware of carbon dioxide build up at least since 1967. Possibly significantly earlier than that. He had mentioned it at a 1967 Solar Energy Conference in Tucson, Arizona and he had been talking about space satellites and microwave energy since ‘68. And here was his patent. 

What we learn is that smart people were knocking out actual plausible technofixes. 

What happened next? The idea of space-based systems was later used, I think, by the Reagan administration apparatchiks to undercut and undermine land-based systems. We should, of course, have had both. If we were smart species, that’s what we would have done. But we’re not a smart species. We are a technologically adept species, but that is distinct from being smart. And here we are with the emissions still rising. 

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: 

December 23, 2003 – Vestas opens Tasmanian wind turbine factory

December 23, 2009 – Kevin Rudd told to call double-dissolution #climate election… (spoiler – he didn’t)

Categories
United States of America

December 20, 1969 – AGU on climate change…

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 20th, 1969,

By contrast, the first reference to “global warming” doesn’t appear in Google’s archives until the end of the next decade. This Dec. 20, 1969 story by United Press International headlined “Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution” is the first in Google News’s archives to unambiguously use the phrase “global warming” to describe the phenomena. https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0908/why-are-they-calling-it-climate-change-now

On December 21, 1969, the New York Times ran a UPI wire story, “Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution,” which reported that scientists discussed the possible threat of manmade global warming at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, with calls for greater monitoring of the climate:

J.O. Fletcher, a physical scientist for the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., said that “man had only a few decades to solve the problem of global warming caused by pollution.” Global warming could cause further melting of the polar ice caps and affect the earth’s climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American Association for the Advancement of Science had held a seminar in 1968. And the American Meteorological Society held one in October 1969. The RAND Corporation had done a piece on fossil fuels, and that was being reported at this meeting of the American Geophysical Union, which readers will remember, is the same place that Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass made his bombshell announcement in 1953. It was one of the first times (and probably the first) that “global warming” was referred to in the press. 

What we learn is that there is a finite number of venues for influential commentary on the science of all this. The AGU was one AAAS was another. 

What happened next? As the 60s turned into the 70s it became less surprising to find carbon dioxide build-up mentioned as a potential environmental problem. Already in the same neck of the woods in San Francisco 9 months earlier there had been “teach-ins” about the issues – about ecology, People’s Park and all the rest of it. Fundamentally, we knew. 

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: 

December 20, 1983 – Documentary on “the Climate Crisis” shown

December 20, 2007 – UK opposition leader David Cameron gives clean coal speech in Beijing…

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 9th, 2004, Real Climate is launched..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that denial of climate change and spurious science to back it up was still a major thing. And this was before social media, before it was very easy for scientists to explain what they were doing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it, and so forth. Real Climate was a real boon to a lot of people who wanted to keep up with what was going on, and to refute the latest denialist talking points.

What we learn is that good scientists have been willing to spend precious time explaining the facts and the theories and the observations and where the facts, theories and observations might not necessarily mesh. And this has, perhaps over time, reduced the confusion. in some people’s minds, maybe. Of course, the simple fact is that a lot of people are choosing not to understand, because if they did understand, it would be pretty bad for their egos and their worldviews. Ignorance is bliss. Alethophobia is a thing. 

What happened next Real Climate still going 20 years later. It’s a solid performance and a solid achievement. 

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: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

December 7, 2011 – a CCS network is launched

Thirteen years ago, on this day, December 7th, 2011, one of those technology advocacy network coalitions got going….

Environmental Organizations Announce CCS Network: Groups Support Carbon Capture and Sequestration as a Critical Climate Change Technology

(USA) December 7, 2011 – Today nine of the world’s leading environmental advocacy organizations launch the ENGO Network on CCS (Environmental NGO Network on Carbon Capture and Sequestration), formed to jointly pursue domestic and international policies and regulations enabling CCS to deliver on its emissions reduction potential safely and effectively. http://www.precaution.org/lib/catf_press_release_engo_ccs_network.111207.pdf [DEAD LINK]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that CCS was in trouble – FutureGen was not working, the Australian efforts were coming to naught, the UK first competition was flailing, the European Union stuff not going well. What to do? Click your heels more vigorously and double-down on your public protestations of faith…

What I think we can learn from this: To really understand why stuff gets launched, you have to know what was happening at the time.

What happened next. People are still proclaiming their faith in CCS.

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: 

December 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

Categories
Economics of mitigation United States of America

December 2, 2023 – Exxon’s boss vs IEA, planet

One year ago, on this day, December 2nd, 2023,

DUBAI, Dec 2 (Reuters) – Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods on Saturday rejected the International Energy Agency’s recent claim that using wide-scale carbon capture to fight climate change was an implausible “illusion”, saying the same could be said about electric vehicles and solar energy.

“There is no solution set out there today that is at the scale to solve the problem,” Woods told Reuters on the sidelines of the COP28 climate summit in Dubai.

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

The context was that the oil industry chief execs were turning up in force to COP28, the one with the so-called “Stocktake”. And the chief executives have a habit of saying inconvenient things or truthful things.

What I think we can learn from this. From the mouths of babes. And not-terribly-bright greedheads…

What happened next

MARC TO WRITE IN DECEMBER

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: 

December 2, 1964 – Mario Savio’s “bodies on the gears” speech at Berkeley..

December 2, 1981 – “Is the world getting warmer?” (YES)

December 2, 1991 – “Ecologically Sustainable Development” bites the dust…

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

December 1, 1984 – they’re talking about CCS already…

Forty years ago, on this day, December 1st, 1984, Carbon Capture and Storage got an early study,

 Systems study for the removal, recovery and disposal of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power plants in the US

Abstract

This report examines the feasibility of preventing man-made CO/sub 2/ from entering the atmosphere. Utilities produce about 30% of the emissions of CO/sub 2/, therefore, the system is first applied in this study to the power plant effluents. An absorption/stripping stack gas scrubbing and regeneration process was chosen for the present system study. An improved solvent process is used and the process is integrated with the power plant operations to improve the efficiency of the combined plant. Three methods of disposal are selected and appropriately applied, depending on geographical proximity to the source power plants. The US Department of Energy Federal Region Divisions for utility power plants was utilised to aggregate and design the disposal system. The energy requirement to drive the various parts of the system is estimated. This is a first order design and cost estimation system study, made primarily for the purpose of determining the order of magnitude feasibility and economic costs for the removal, recovery, and disposal of CO/sub 2/ from power plant stacks in the US. The base year chosen for the systems analysis was 1980 and all capacity and costs are indexed to that year.

Authors: Steinberg, M; Cheng, H C; Horn, F

Publication Date: 1984-12-01

Research Org.: Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (USA)

OSTI Identifier: 6084354 published 2 years later as https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ep.670050409?saml_referrer

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that CCS had got its first serious push in 1977, with the publication of an article by Cesar Marchetti, an Italian physicist who had been asked to think about the issue by our good friends a the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis,t IIASA, never-knowingly out-technofixed. Albanese had done some work in the late 1970s, and this was a follow-up

What I think we can learn from this is that CCS has been talked about for almost 50 years. Still not delivering any detectable-compared-to-annual-emissions ‘savings’ (EOR doesn’t count, for obvious reasons).

What happened next. There was a spasm of interest in the late 1980s, but for real hype, you have to wait until the early 2000s.

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: 

December 1, 1976 – Met Office boss still saying carbon dioxide build-up a non-issue

December 1, 2005 – David Cameron says “low carbon living should not be a weird or worthy obligation”

December 1, 2008 – Climate Change Committee fanboys carbon capture