Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

August 29, 1981 – New York Times editorial “Heating up the Atmosphere”

Forty four years ago, on this day, August 29th, 1981, a week after a front page story “Study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels,” the New York Times editorialised

For years there have been doomsday predictions that burning of fossil fuels might bring about a climatic catastrophe. According to the most alarming theories, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse, blocking the escape of heat into space and thus warming the Earth’s surface. The ice caps could melt, sea levels could rise, agriculture could be disrupted and vast coastal areas might be inundated.

The chief weakness in such theories has been lack of evidence that the greenhouse effect is actually occurring. Though carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have been falling over the last 30 years. But now seven scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration claim to have found evidence that, on a global basis, carbon dioxide has already been warming the Earth for a century. They predict it will produce ”unprecedented” warming in the next century.

Their study finds that the warming predicted by various computer models of the greenhouse effect is consistent with worldwide temperature readings since 1880 – and with observations from Venus and Mars. That gave them confidence that the effect is real and that the models can predict it. Other scientists will challenge their assumptions, methods and conclusions. Some actually believe that the greenhouse effect would be beneficial to world agriculture. Conclusive observations may not be available for decades. But it is significant that a respected team of scientists has now joined the group warning of possible catastrophe.

What, if anything, should be done? The nation seems to be turning to the worst possible fuels in terms of carbon dioxide. It is depending less on solar and nuclear power, which emit no carbon dioxide at all. And among the fossil fuels, it is shifting from natural gas and oil, which emit little carbon dioxide, to coal and synthetic fuels, which emit much more.

The greenhouse effect is still too uncertain to warrant total alteration of energy policy. But this latest study offers fair warning; that such a change may yet be required is no longer unimaginable.

Opinion | Heating Up the Atmosphere – The New York Times

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the New York Times, and other papers, had been reporting on carbon dioxide build-up, quite intermittently, since the 1950s.

The specific context was that the Reagan administration was busy attacking science. The New York Times’ science correspondent, Walter Sullivan, had talked to James Hansen, which ended up costing some funding. See this 2007 interview with Hansenhttps://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/hansen.html.

Why do you think that your testimony in particular was sensitive in the [Reagan] administration, so much so that OMB would want to shade what you were saying?

Well, I think the reason it was sensitive was the fact that it got attention. In 1981 the paper that we wrote in Science — that predicted that the world would be getting warmer over the 1980s and that by the year 2000 you begin to see loss of sea ice and eventually you have opening of the fabled Northwest Passage — that article was reported on the front page of The New York Times by Walter Sullivan. As a result, we lost our funding from the Department of Energy, because, in that administration, they simply did not want that sort of attention to this problem, because it has big implications for fossil fuel industry.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough and we didn’t act. We can stick that on our tombstone.

What happened next – it would be 1988 before politicians would have to start to pretend to give a damn.

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: 

August 29, 1990 – The Australian mining and forestry industries threaten to spit the dummy

August 29, 2005 – Hurricane Katrina

August 29, 2008 – business tells Labor to go softly (Labor then does, obvs).

Categories
United States of America

“Climatic Change appears to be underway, in fact.” – the 1965 commencement speech that should have rocked the world.

Sixty years ago today, on Thursday August 26th 1965, Carl W. Borgmann stood in front of hundreds of young Americans in Knoxville. Borgmann, who was the director of the Ford Foundation’s Science and Engineering programme, was there to deliver the commencement address for the University of Tennessee.  He probably gave it little thought, but he was doing something unprecedented – he was using a commencement address to warn young people about the threat of carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere.

[Update 31/8/2025 – a comprehensive Wikipedia page has been created about Borgmann, in response to this article. It’s really good]

[Update 1/9/2025 – here’s an interview with Martha Crago, Borgmann’s daughter.]

His speech was given the unwieldy title “A Conversation Ethic. Man’s Use of Science: Some Deferred Costs “ when it appeared the following year in the Massachusetts Audubon Society magazine. He began by explaining what he would not talk about.

“I would rather not deal today with new discoveries in science – not because they are not exciting, for they are, nor because I don’t feel quite comfortable with some of them, which is certainly true, but because another topic seems more urgent to me. Even as I contemplate what man may know through science, I am impelled to ask what he will do with this knowledge – not only with his new scientific discoveries, but with his older ones too, and his ingenious technologies.”

Borgmann laid out many of the challenges – physical, social and moral –  facing the United States and the world. Then, two thirds of the way through the speech he said the following startlingly prescient phrases.

“Now consider the burning of fossil fuels. If everyone does it at the average we now have achieved, there will be whole new sets of problems; in fact, many American communities face them presently. What shall we do with the inevitable wastes of our energy-producing processes, with our ash heaps, with the smog of Los Angeles, with the unnatural warming of our rivers?”

Borgmann asks the students to imagine that technology will burn fuels more cleanly, before  presenting them with the central dilemma.

“But even if we could afford devices which allowed for our fuels to be completely burned to water and carbon dioxide, another change in our environment is likely. Carbon dioxide, as it becomes a greater proportion of the atmosphere, behaves somewhat like the glass of a greenhouse. It traps heat from the sun, and climatic change results – not overnight, but slowly and surely. This process appears to be already under way, in fact.”

Carl Borgmann

Borgman followed this with a critique of nuclear power – “The preparation of the fuel and the handling and storage of the radioactive waste ash are not without dangers to man and his future.”

Borgmann was sixty at this point. Born in Missouri he had graduated from the University of Colorado in 1927 before working on the technical staff of the Bell Telephones Laboratories and gaining a master’s degree in chemical engineering and a PhD from Cambridge University.  He had worked at the universities of North Carolina, Colorado and Nebraska before becoming President of University of Vermont in 1952. 

In 1958, Borgmann had started working for the Ford Foundation. His job basically involved handing out money in the form of grants in the resource and environment field.

Borgmann was therefore extremely well equipped to understand the carbon dioxide problem.

Where did he get his information?  While carbon dioxide build-up had been covered in both the scientific press, and even by President Lyndon Johnson a few months earlier, by far the most likely source of inspiration for Borgmann’s comments lie with a group that the Ford Foundation helped to fund – the Conservation Foundation.

Established in 1948 the Conservation Foundation had organised some of the pivotal meetings of US academics and policymakers in the 1950s and early sixties around environmental problems.

As Rebecca John reported a year ago, the Conservation Foundation’s March 1963 workshop was pivotal in raising awareness within governmental circles.

“The present liberation of such large amounts of fossil carbon in such a short time is unique in the history of the earth,” the report stated, “and there is no guarantee that past buffering mechanisms are really adequate.”

This rise in atmospheric CO2 was “worldwide,” the summary reported, and, while it did not present an immediate threat, would be significant “to the generations to follow.” The document went on to say, “The consumption of fossil fuels has increased to such a pitch within the last half century, that the total atmospheric consequences are matters of concern for the planet as a whole.”  Relief was likely “only through the development of some new source of power.”

Given the Ford Foundation’s ties with the networks of corporate philanthropy and policy-shaping institutions such as the Conservation Foundation, it seems highly likely that a copy of the report landed on his desk. 

In all probability, however, this was not the only source Borgmann had. Through the 1950s, and especially around the time of the 1957-8 “International Geophysical Year,” the possibility of modifying the weather and the climate had been much discussed. Carbon dioxide build-up had appeared in cartoons, public education films and on television programmes. The previous year, in August 1964, Popular Mechanics had run a story about the changing air.

Screengrab Popular Mechanics August 1964

A large portion of Borgmann’s speech appeared the following spring, in the magazine of the Massachusetts Audubon Society. From there, it was approvingly cited in an article entitled “The Future Role of the Biologist in Protecting our Natural Resources“ by the biologist Richard Goodwin in the journal Biological Conservation. 

In a February 1968 luncheon speech at the New York Waldorf Astoria called “A Challenging Future”, delivered to extractive metallurgists, Borgmann covered similar ground, trying to explain that there were limits to both resources and the planet’s capacity to cope with the consequences of human ingenuity.

Meanwhile, other, more senior figures were beginning to use commencement addresses to warn students of threats in their future. On June 10, 1966  Glenn Seaborg, head of the Atomic Energy Commission warned students at UC San Diego that “at the rate we are currently adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere (six billion tonnes a year) within the next few decades the heat balance of that atmosphere could be altered enough to produce marked changes in the climate – changes we might have no means of controlling.” Seaborg continued, saying “I, for one, would prefer to continue to travel toward the equator for my warmer weather than run the risk of melting the polar ice and having some of our coastal areas disappear beneath a rising ocean.”

By 1969 students at commencement addresses were proclaiming that “the future is a cruel hoax”

June 1, 1969 – “The Future is a Cruel Hoax” Commencement address

Borgmann was not, of course, responsible for this upsurge in awareness.  What is remarkable though, is that the young people to whom he spoke in 1965 would have very little inkling of global atmospheric threats besides the possibility of nuclear war.  Four years later, such threats were far more commonplace.

Borgmann closed his 1965 commencement address by invoking the words of Adlai Stevenson, twice Democratic presidential candidate and ambassador to the United Nations, who had died the previous month.  

“We travel together, passengers on a little space ship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil; all committed for our safety to its security and peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work and, I will say, the love we give our fragile craft.”

Borgmann lived a long life. He died in 1998. Three years earlier 1995 the IPCC’s Secod Assessment Report had declared that human impact on the atmosphere was already “discernible.” The year before he died, the Kyoto Protocol was agreed (though the US Senate had already signalled its unwillingness to be part of any global deal).  

The warnings of carbon dioxide build-up he had given in 1965, when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at only 320 parts per million (it is now 430ppm) had come to pass. 

Also on this day

August 26, 1970 The Alkali Inspector’s report… 

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

August 26, 1991 – Norwegian PM says “we cannot delay.”

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

August 26, 2006 – First “Climate Camp” begins

Categories
United States of America

August 22, 1960 – JFK says “we must climb to the hilltop”

Sixty-five years ago, on this day, August 22nd, 1960, Life Magazine published a story about the coming presidential election.

 When Life asked both presidential candidates in 1960 to define the national purpose, only John Kennedy mentioned environmental problems. “The good life falls short as an indicator of national purpose unless it goes hand in hand with the good society,” Kennedy wrote. “Even in material terms, prosperity is not enough when there is no equal opportunity to share in it; when economic progress means overcrowded cities, abandoned farms, technological unemployment, polluted air and water, and littered parks and countrysides; when those too young to earn are denied their chance to learn; when those no longer earning live out their lives in lonely degradation.”15 ; 

John F. Kennedy, “We Must Climb to the Hilltop,” Life, Aug. 22, 1960, pp. 70B–77, esp. 75 cited in Adam Rome 2

“We Must Climb to the Hilltop,” Life Magazine, 22 August 1960 | JFK Library

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 316ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that although Silent Spring was still to be published, there were incipient worries – about the spread of car culture, of litter, of the Thanksgiving berries being 

The specific context was there was a tight Presidential election going on, and candidates will say whatever will help them get the votes…

What I think we can learn from this – politicians will say whatever will help them get the votes (though to be fair to JFK, he did then try to make “the environment” an issue, but nobody was paying any attention.

What happened next – JFK won the 1960 election – persistent rumours about his dad having stolen Illinois for him remain…

Kallina, E. 1985. Was the 1960 Presidential Election Stolen? The Case of Illinois. Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 113-118  https://www.jstor.org/stable/27550168

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: 

August 22, 1987 – “Civilisation and Rapid Climate Change” – a short book

August 22, 1988 – scientists say “Australia, expect #climate refugees”

August 22, 1981 – New York Times front page story costs #climate scientists their jobs.

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

August 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Categories
Denial United States of America

August 20, 1996 – Denialist wastes time, energy in stupid smear

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 20th, 1996,

Frederick Seitz, in his capacity as president of the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, DC, assembled the small group of sceptics from among the institute’s leaders and acquired support from some senators in US Congress. They wrote a letter to the two co-chairmen of Working Group I and myself (dated 20 August 1996) and to Tim Wirth at the US State Department, again challenging the outcome of the Madrid meeting. On this occasion the politics of climate change was more in focus. Some of the senators who had signed the letter had attended the second conference of the parties to the Climate Convention in Geneva in July as observers.
The response from the State Department (dated 24 September) was quite detailed and succinct. A short and carefully written review of the relevant scientific conclusions in the IPCC SAR was given (presumably prepared by Bob Watson, the co-chairman of Working Group II and in the USA responsible for the White House for environmental issues.  Wirth rejected the accusations and then sketched the Administration’s view of the US policy that should be aimed for during the next few years.

(Bolin, 2007: 132)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the denial campaigns against carbon dioxide had kicked off properly in 1989, George Marshall Institute pivoted from shilling for Star Wars to attacking James Hansen and any other scientist who stuck their head above the parapet.  In this they were joined by the Global Climate Coalition (lobbying policymakers), the Climate Council (gumming up the international negotiations), etc

The specific context was the release of the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saw the denial and smear campaigns kick into high gear, because the summary for policy makers included the fateful phrase (suggested by Bolin) that human activity had already had a “discernible” impact on the atmosphere. So the denialists picked on someone they perceived to be vulnerable, and tried to smear him. Fortunately, it didn’t work (though they tried the same shit with Michael Mann later).

What I think we can learn from this is that the denial lobby were unprincipled scum (I know, this may come as a shock) who deserve to rot in hell.

What happened next The IPCC kept producing reports. And reports. And reports. And the emissions kept climbing because, really, who the hell listens to scientists?

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

Bolin, B. 2007. A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Also on this day: 

August 20, 1988 – Hansen’s model released – All Our Yesterdays

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2016 – Exxon’s gonna get sued? – All Our Yesterdays

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Categories
International processes United States of America

August 19, 2002 – Bush skips the Earth Summit

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, August 19th, 2002, Dubya shows his priorities….

August 19th, 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell will lead the American delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa from August 26 through September 4. President George W. Bush made the announcement late today, giving no explanation as to why he will not be attending the summit to join 106 other world leaders on the speaker’s podium.

USA: Bush Turns His Back on Earth Summit https://corpwatch.org/article/usa-bush-turns-his-back-earth-summit

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the US writes the (unwritten) rules, it doesn’t obey them. The laws are there to protect the rich and constrain the weak, not the other way round – that stuff is just for the academic theory books and the propaganda aimed at the credulous (there is a distressing amount of overlap between these two categories. Meh, it is what it is).

The specific context was that Bush was simply reminding everyone who had the nukes and the hegemonic status. Much as his dad, George Herbert Hoover Walker Bush, had done in 1991 and 1992, threatening not to attend the Rio Earth Summit if the text of the Climate Treaty included targets and timetables for emissions reductions.

What I think we can learn from this- the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Also, all the liberal and conservative whining about Trump not obeying international law, international norms. Please – bite me.

What happened next – the US kept on being a rogue state, because that what suits those in charge of it. And the emissions kept climbing.

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: 

August 19, 1968 – Is Man Spoiling the Weather? (yes)

August 19 1997 – “The denialists take Canberra” with “Countdown to Kyoto” conference

August 19, 2002 – Pacific Islands make unreasonable demands about continuing to live – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

August 17, 1988 – “The Greening of Congress”

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1988,

RS (1988) The `greening’ of Congress. Christian Science Monitor, August 17, 1988

https://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0817/ewirth.html

TWO US senators recently introduced bills to help slow global climate warming. The bills could put the United States in the forefront of international efforts to combat the so-called greenhouse effect. Norway appears to be the only country to have officially committed itself to reducing carbon dioxide emissions – a key culprit in warming the climate. Norwegians plan to cut such pollution by 20 percent by the year 2000. If enacted, the Senate measures could form the basis for a more comprehensive strategy than one focused only on carbon dioxide.

A bill introduced by Vermont Republican Sen. Robert Stafford would ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for all but medical uses by 1999. CFCs help destroy the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer and play a major role in trapping heat in the atmosphere. Senator Stafford’s bill would also require the US to cut CO2 emissions by half by the year 2000. It would also impose tight limits on nitrogen oxides and other gases that contribute to ozone smog at ground level.

A second bill, introduced by Colorado Democrat Timothy Wirth, asks for smaller reductions in CO2 emissions – 20 percent by 2000. But it also calls for a comprehensive US energy policy based on greater energy efficiency, more research into alternative energy sources, research into safer nuclear reactor designs, and broader use of natural gas to fuel power plants and vehicles. It would allot more money for basic atmospheric research. It would also steer US international aid efforts toward encouraging global population control, preserving rain forests, and supporting reforestation projects.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that carbon dioxide build-up had become a relatively regular (albeit infrequent) subject in the Op-Ed pages of Serious Newspapers over the preceding decade. 

The specific context was that James Hansen’s landmark testimony before a Senate hearing in June, combined with the drought affecting the mid-west, had “the greenhouse effect” on everyone’s lips. For a great summary of this, see the “Grant Swinger” article LINK HERE.

What I think we can learn from this – “greening” of politicians tends to go almost as quickly as it comes, in the absence of robust radical social movement organisations. Which we don’t have, and won’t have. So it goes.

What happened next – there was a flurry of announcements and pronouncements in 1988 and 1989. By 1990 the reality, and the organised backlash, were biting back. And the emissions? Oh, they kept climbing, of course.

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: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister” – All Our Yesterdays

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Science United States of America

August 15, 1977 – “Theoretical climate effects of doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content”

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, August 15th, 1977,

Theoretical climate effects of doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content.

 Presented at the Third Ecology-Meteorology Workshop, University of Michigan Biological Station, 15-18 August 1977

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 333ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that by the mid-1970s scientists studying the issue were getting more and more concerned. In 1975 the first “global warming” paper appeared – vale Wally Broecker) and the National Academies of Science started paying attention to “Energy and Climate”. President Carter had kicked off the “Global 2000” report too. Word was getting round…

The specific context was that American science wasn’t at that time under full assault by a bunch of crooks, thugs and wilfully ignorant theocratic racists. So, the good old days.

Also, in 1975 this paper had come out – The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 32 Issue 1 (1975)

What I think we can learn from this – People knew. Not everyone, but more than you’d think.

What happened next – in 1979 the First World Climate Conference happened in Geneva, Switzerland, organised by the World Meteorological Organisation. It could have been pivotal, but wasn’t. The thick end of another decade was wasted.

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: 

August 15, 1952 – flash flood – caused by Weather Modification experiment? – All Our Yesterdays

August 15, 1989 – Queenslander mayor says the greenhouse effect is like“a bird urinating in the Tweed River while in flight”

August 15, 2010 – Russia halts grain exports because of droughts and heatwaves

August 15, 2010 – a walk against warming fails to catch fire. #RepertoireRot

Categories
United States of America

August 13, 2004 – “Stabilisation wedges”

Twenty one years ago today, Science publishes the “Stabilisation Wedges” paper…

*Steven Pacala and Robert Socolow, “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies,” Science 305, no. 5686 (August 13, 2004): 968-972,

“Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world’s energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration. Every element in this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale. Although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough that not every element has to be used.”

Ha ha, we are so fubarred.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the discussions of “what to do” had been going on for a long long time.  

The specific context was – the Bush administration had pulled out of Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Those wanting to “do something” were turning to technology. 

What I think we can learn from this – the numbers around mitigation were daunting then. Now they’re laughable.

What happened next. Stabilisation wedges were flavour of the month for a while. Now? Haven’t heard them referenced for ages. It’s apparently all about the speed of wind and solar roll-out.

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: 

August 13, 1882 – William “Coal Question” Jevons dies

August 13, 1991 – clouds and silver linings 

August 13, 2007 – Newsweek nails denialists

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

August 8, 2006 – MIT Review on “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 8th, 2006. MIT Review has a story on, well, “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean” calling it a “A safe, high-capacity method could make carbon sequestration more practical.” 

God forbid breathless technophilia ever infect people’s cognitive faculties…

One way to combat global climate change is to directly capture carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as it is being emitted, and store it safely. But methods of carbon dioxide sequestration, notably, pumping the gas into underground geologic structures such as exhausted oil reservoirs, are not practical in many areas, and raise fears that the stored carbon dioxide will escape.

A better way to store carbon dioxide: Pump it into the sea floor in liquid form. There,high pressure and cold temperatures make it more dense than water in the surrounding rock, preventing it from rising to the surface. (Source: Daniel Schrag. Artist: Jared T. Williams)

Now researchers at Harvard University and Columbia University have proposed a new method for trapping nearly limitless amounts of carbon dioxide – a technique they say will be secure, as well as a practical option for areas located far from underground reservoirs.

The researchers, in an article posted online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, propose that carbon dioxide be pumped into the porous sediment a few hundred meters into the sea floor in deep parts of the ocean (greater than 3,000 meters deep), in what one of the researchers, Dan Schrag, professor of geochemistry at Harvard, calls “a fairly simple, permanent solution.”

The key was finding a “sweet spot,” where the pressure and temperature of the surrounding environment make carbon dioxide more dense than surrounding fluids, thereby trapping it in place. This situation occurs at the bottom of the ocean because of a combination of high pressure and low temperatures – a fact others have also noted in proposals to store carbon dioxide in deep parts of the ocean.

Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean | MIT Technology Review

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from the mid-1970s various scientists had been saying “well, look if carbon dioxide build-up is actually a problem, we will just bury it in/under the oceans. Simples.”

The specific context was that the carbon dioxide build-up issue was back on the agenda because the Kyoto Protocol had come into effect – despite US and Australian intransigence – in February 2005. This meant that there would be a successor deal, and the rich countries wanted to be able to say “tech will fix it” to dodge calls for emissions cuts by rich people.

What I think we can learn from this is that we believe what is convenient to believe, and disregard the rest (yes, that’s a Simon and Garfunkel hollaback).

What happened next – the CCS bandwagon lost a wheel in 2011 or so. This has since been duct-taped back on, at considerable expense to the taxpayer.

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: 

August 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

August 7, 1933 – Elinor Ostrom born

Ninety-two years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1933 Elinor Olstrom was born.

Elinor Claire “Lin” Ostrom (née Awan; August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012) was an American political scientist and political economist[1][2][3] whose work was associated with New Institutional Economics and the resurgence of political economy.[4] In 2009, she was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her “analysis of economic governance, especially the commons“, which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson; she was the first woman to win the prize.[5]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 308ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

What I think we can learn from Ostrom. Governance of common goods (it IS possible, it has been done). Garrett “Tragedy of the Commons” Hardin was not merely extremely racist but extremely racist and wrong.

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: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action