Twenty years ago, on this day, January 16 2003, a “milestone” was reached. Oh yes.
CHICAGO, IL – Efforts to develop market-based solutions to global warming reach a milestone today as leading U.S. and international companies and the City of Chicago announce they will be the Founding Members of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX®), a voluntary cap-and-trade program for reducing and trading greenhouse gas emissions. In an unprecedented voluntary action, these entities have made a legally binding commitment to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by four percent below the average of their 1998-2001 baseline by 2006, the last year of the pilot program.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was that a bunch of people thought – or chose to pretend they thought – that we could trade our way out of trouble, and that those who were early and/or quick could make a killing, and be doing well by doing good.
Carbon trading as a substitute for actual action… Because, you know, it would be cheaper that way…
What I think we can learn from this
That trading schemes are going to cause a feeding frenzy for banks and legal consultancies, and keen-to-burnish-image customer-facing businesses. Smart people take a breath and try to separate the hype and froth from what is actually being proposed.
What happened next
Turns out it didn’t work.
“CCX ceased trading carbon credits at the end of 2010 due to inactivity in the U.S. carbon markets,” (wikipedia)
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 10, 1991, the New York Times ran a story that has become very very familiar.
The earth was warmer in 1990 than in any other year since people began measuring the planet’s surface temperature, separate groups of climatologists in the United States and Britain said yesterday.
A third group, in the United States, reported record temperatures from one to six miles above the earth’s surface. These were recorded from balloons from December 1989 through November 1990.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .
The context was that the US had finally been forced to agree to take part in negotiations for a world climate treaty (what became, in June 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The denial and delay campaigns were kicking into gear (the so-called ‘Global Climate Coalition’ doing its predatory delay thing). Part of the context for the whole climate awakening was how warm the 1980s had been (mild by today’s standards, of course).
What I think we can learn from this
The “warmest year ever” meme does not, on its own, ‘wake up the sheeple’. If you want to have effective long-term action, you need effective long-term social movement organisations.
Twenty years ago, on this day, January 8, 2003, the US business press reports on what we now call “carbon capture and storage”
“A potential solution to global warming could lie two miles deep, both underground and in the ocean.”
Global warming has been linked to emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the by-product of burning fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. So, some scientists are examining ways to curb the gaseous emissions: burying them underground or injecting them into the ocean.
The technology, known as carbon sequestration, is used by energy firms as an oil-recovery tool.
But in recent years, the Department of Energy has broadened its research into sequestration as a way to reduce emissions. And the energy industry has taken early steps toward using sequestration to capture emissions from power plants.
Even some environmentalists support carbon sequestration, although they generally object to the ocean-storage method. Partly because of environmental concerns about the ocean, government researchers are leaning toward underground storage as a preferred procedure.
Loftus, P. 2003. Energy Firms Bury Carbon Emissions. Wall Street Journal, 8 January.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was that US President Bush, shortly after being awarded the Presidency by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, had reneged on a campaign promise to regulate carbon emissions and then pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol process (not that the US had ever been likely to ratify!). Therefore he had need of technofixes so that people who wanted/needed to believe him but who also needed to pretend (including to themselves) that they cared about climate action, could sleep at night.
The whole CCS caravan was beginning to move – there had been a meeting in Regina, Canada in November 2002, and the IPCC was about to start ball rolling on its CCS special report.
What I think we can learn from this
Stories of techno-salvation are very very important. They will have a lot of friends, a lot of inertia. Turning those stories into reality, or exposing those stories is trickier, however.
What happened next
Dumping carbon dioxide in the deep oceans is now legally a no-no. London Protocol etc. Actual working CCS that doesn’t involve enhanced oil recovery? Still waiting…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Forty-five years ago, on this day, January 4, 1977,
“Representative George Brown, Jr. (D-CA) introduced legislation to serve two functions: (1) improve the scientific reliability of climate prediction, and (2) fund applied climatological research to improve the resilience of American society in the face of climate-induced stresses. Frustrated that his previous attempt to pass climate legislation had failed to translate into any national climate policy during the Ford Administration, Brown believed that the time had come to firmly integrate climate into national planning.10 ‘‘I believe we have reached a maturity and urgency of scientific and popular interest which makes possible a successful drive toward scientific, executive branch, and legislative consensus on the design of a national and coordinated climate program,’’ he reasoned on the House floor.11 “
(Henderson 2016)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was
By the mid-1970s, scientists from various countries (including the US, the UK, Sweden, Germany) were starting to look at carbon dioxide build-up and say “you know, shit could get real” (I paraphrase). Some politicians, including Brown, were listening. So was Olof Palme, Swedish Prime Minister. Other politicians were not, and are still not.
What I think we can learn from this
Some politicians have been trying to get money for research for a long time, with varying success. Since 1988, some politicians have been trying to help the species be less stupid on climate change. With much less success. We needed radical social movements, but instead we got captured and tamed eco-modernisation shills. Oh well…. (see this letter in the Financial Times).
What happened next
President Jimmy Carter did, later in 1977, sign some legislation. Things were moving, a bit. Then came Reagan…
Thirty-nine years ago, on this day, January 3, 1984, the New York Times science journalist Walter Sullivan had a story that began with words that could have been written yesterday, more or less…
“A GLOBAL strategy to reduce a potentially dangerous increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has been outlined by engineers and economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University.
“In a report to the National Science Foundation, the specialists propose that the use of fossil fuel, largely responsible for the carbon dioxide increase, can be substantially reduced by greater efficiency in energy production.”
Sullivan had been writing about carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere for the NYT since the early 1960s (having become aware of the issue during his coverage of the 1957-8 International Geophysical Year).
The report’s lead author, David Rose had been quoted in an August 1980 Wall Street Journal article (which we will come to later) as saying that if the CO2 theory were right “that means big trouble.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 344ppm. As of January 2023 it is 417. .
The context was that by the mid-late 1970s, US scientists were able to get funding for decent studies of carbon dioxide build-up, and were even getting some sympathetic hearings from the Jimmy Carter White House. That all ended when Reagan and his goons turned up… In October 1983 two “conflicting” reports about CO build-up had been released. (something AOY will cover later this year).
What I think we can learn from this
We knew. As I have argued here, and elsewhere, ad infitum and nauseam, there is not an information deficit,,but there is a sustained radical social movements deficit.
What happened next
The issue finally was forced onto the agenda in 1988. Reports like the MIT/Stanford one have been written pretty much every year since then. Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gses have climbed almost every year. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have gone up and up and up.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Rose, David J.; Miller, Marvin M.; Agnew and Carson E. (1983) “Global energy futures and CO\2082-induced climate change: report prepared for Division of Policy Research and Analysis, National Science Foundation https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/60493
Thirty-four years ago, on this day, January 1, 1988, US President Ronald Reagan
“reluctantly signs the Global Climate Protection Act” (Agrawala and Anderson, 1999: 459)
A climate bill had been introduced in the Senate in 1986 by Joe Biden, but died in the Senate. According to Politifact “a version of Biden’s legislation survived as an amendment (29th January 1987) to a State Department funding bill.”
The bill
Directs the President to establish a Task Force on the Global Climate to research, develop, and implement a coordinated national strategy on global climate. Requires such Task Force to transmit a United States Strategy on the Global Climate to the President within a year. Requires the President to then report to specified Members of Congress on such report.
Directs the President to appoint an ambassador at large to coordinate Federal efforts in multilateral activities relating to global warming.
Directs the Secretary of State to promote the early designation of an International Year of Global Climate Protection.
Urges the President to give climate protection high priority on the agenda of U.S.-Soviet relations.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 417ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
There had been a pivotal meeting of scientists in Villach in October 1985 [see AOY post October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns...] It had been sponsored by WMO, UNEP and ICSU. After it, US Senators (both Republican and Democratic) had held hearings, including with Carl Sagan as a witness in December 1985 [see AOy postDecember 10, 1985 – Carl Sagan testified to US Senators on #climate danger]. Biden’s proposed legislation was one result, and was not exactly the first bite at this cherry – see George Brown on January 4 1977 (if you wait three days, you can learn about it on this very site).
What I think we can learn from this
That it’s hard work to get politicians to actually listen to scientists, but it can, eventually be done. That the narrative of “nobody knew anything/was doing anything until summer 1988” is so vacuous to be “not even wrong.”
That (see below) – liars will rewrite history to try to make their (senile-by-then) hero look good; this is the incumbent’s advantage – anything they were forced to do can later be retconned as part of their farsightedness/largesse. This #CreditClaiming is part of the erasure of history that keeps us perpetually confused and placated. So it goes…
What happened next
The climate issue finally exploded that summer. Four years of brinksmanship and incumbent bastardry followed, resulting in the too weak “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” in June 1992.
More recently, Reagan fanbois have tried to rewrite the history, of course; https://climateconservative dot org forward slash /americas-original-climate-hero/ (no, I am not going to link to those idiots).
For more on the Reagan administration versus everything environmental, see McCright and Dunlap (2010)
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Agrawala,S. and Andresen, S. (1999) Indispensability and Indefensibility? The United States in the Climate Treaty Negotiations. Global Governance, Vol. 5, No. 4 pp. 457-482
McCright, A. and Dunlap R. (2010). Anti-reflexivity. Theory, Culture & Society. Volume 27, Issue 2-3 https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764093560
On this day, December 30 in1976 Congressman George Brown(of the Democrats) wrote to incoming President Jimmy Carter
“In his letter to President-Elect Jimmy Carter [on 30th] December 1976, for instance, Brown hesitated to put the blame on human factors, given serious uncertainties about the influence of other causes of climatic change. ‘‘Our knowledge,’’ he noted, ‘‘is primitive concerning the importance of not only natural factors, such as solar activity or orbital behavior, but also of man-made effects due to CO2 and particulate emissions, or fluorocarbon and NOx interaction with the ozone layer.’’
Brown’s tone was certainly not an indictment of efforts to understand the influence of human activities on the global climate system, but rather a preliminary conveyance of urgency to stimulate a much larger effort to understand the nature, causes, and potential impacts of climatic change on human affairs.”
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 332ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
Scientists were beginning to say they were fairly sure that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was already – and would be – a problem. But not “sure sure”. Politicians were trying to get more money for them to do better research…
Why this matters.
We need to remember that these things take time – and skill – to get up the policy agenda so that ignoring comes with significant political cost..
What happened next?
Brown was “successful” and Carter, by the end of his fraught four years, had done something towards getting the US government to look at climate (if you ignore the synfuels debacle). All that would be swept aside by Reagan, of course….
On this day, December 26 in 1997, the doubt and denial machine that was sharpening its talons and running tests on its deadly bullshit spreaders on December 25, 1989 had won a famous victory at Kyoto, lowering ambition, diverting policymaker attention into easily-scammed “emissions trading” and so on. This was no secret – the mainstream press were perfectly willing to publish articles that laid it out bare.
“With their protestations of dire economic catastrophe as a result of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, U.S. manufacturers are crying wolf for the second time. The first time was a decade ago in response to the Montreal Protocol, which required a 50 percent cut by 1998 in emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which deplete the earth’s protective ozone layer.”
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 364ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
Between 1989 and 1997, “our” fate was sealed – the final nail in the coffin. We’d ignored scientists warnings about carbon dioxide build-up from the 1950s until 1988 (there really was enough evidence by the late 1970s, as this site has tried to flag). From 1989 to 1992 the US – formal administration and informal government (the corporates) did all it could to stop a climate treaty from happening. Once they lost that battle they switched to making sure the treaty was toothless. In this they succeeded. At the first COP, in Berlin, in 1995, the rest of the world had tried to get some teeth, even if only molars, not incisors, back in the mouth. This was the “Berlin Mandate” which said rich countries should come to Kyoto (the third meeting, in late 1997) with a text to reduce their own emissions. Uncle Sam said nope, and again, “lost” but really won.
And here we are.
Why this matters.
It is not just bad luck that we are where we are. When something could have been done, it wasn’t, because a significant portion of the rich and powerful didn’t want it to, others who could have stopped them within the elites were quiescent and the social movements were outgunned.
What happened next?
The US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol (Australia only did in 2007). The COP circus has staggered on. So it goes…
On this day, December 25 in 1989 the business press ran one of the first (of countless) bullshit articles saying that concern about global warming was a “panic”.
The usual cherry-picking and getting react quotes from various contrarians, all wrapped up with basic condescension, and just enough actual facts to make it all seem plausible.
Am not going to quote from it. Life is (really) too short.
Brookes, W. (1989) “The Global Warming Panic” Forbes, December 25: 96-102
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 351ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The “pushback” against concern on climate change was growing. Corporate interests were realising that this was a threat that needed combatting. Outlets like Forbes, read by the CEOs and wanna-be CEOs, needed to provide coherent-seeming, professional seeming pieces, that studiously avoided, oh, any mention of how the atmospheric scientists had been right about ozone, for example.
Why this matters.
The doubt and denial campaigns began in 1989, and picked up speed. We need to remember that. Those who planned and implemented these should be in front of some international tribunal for crimes against humanity and ecocide. But won’t be, of course.
What happened next?
More nonsense, more “Global Climate Coalition” etc.
On this day, December 24 in, 1968 the Earthrise photo
showed our pale blue dot for what it is.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 323ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The Americans were shooting for the moon, with good old American know-how, (as supplied by good-old Americans like Dr Werner von Braun) (the Soviets had given up boots on the moon as simply too expensive).
Why this matters.
Every so often someone says “we need a global consciousness”. Yeah, been there, done that, got the t-shirt, it wasn’t enough
What happened next?
The first big big wave of eco-concerrn, from the beginning of 1969 to the middle of 1972 or so…
