Categories
Australia South Paciific

September 17, 1997 – Howard does some PR…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1997,

“Federal Cabinet will tomorrow consider the Government’s crucial domestic greenhouse policy, which it intends to use to convince the international community Australia is not seeking a “free ride” on climate change.”
Taylor, L. 1997. Cabinet to look at new tack on climate change. The Australian Financial Review, 15 September, p. 5

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2026, 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 John Howard had become Prime Minister in March 1996 and it was pretty clear that he was going to oppose any commitments for Australia on reducing its emissions. He had sent people around the world to try and drum up diplomatic support, or at least tolerance, for his view ahead of the impending conference of the parties in Kyoto at which rich nations were supposed to come with their emissions reductions proposals.

The specific context was that this sort of flat out intransigence was causing consternation both within the Liberal Party and across business and voters more generally, so Howard was having to do a little bit of his PR shtick. 

What I think we can learn from this is that in any society, but especially one with elections, politicians will have to pretend to give a shit about issues they really do not give a shit about.

What happened next Howard’s Environment Minister, Robert Hill, managed to extort a fantastically generous deal at Kyoto (de jure 108% de facto, once you took into account the so-called land clearing clause, the Australia clause).

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 17, 1954 – nuclear electricity will be too cheap to meter

September 17, 1969 – trying to spin Vietnam, Moynihan starts warning about #climate change

September 17, 1978 – National Climate Program Act

September 17, 1980 – Canberra Times reports “fossil fuels changing climate”

September 17, 1987 – Policymakers turn from Ozone to Greenhouse, says Wall Street Journal

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

September 17, 1992 – Paul Keating versus climate action (spoiler: Keating wins)

September 17, 2002 – UK Government announces feasibility study into Carbon Capture and Storage

Categories
United States of America

September 16, 1968 – Newspaper editorial “Considering the Consequences”

Fifty eight years ago, on this day, September 16th, 1968,

“Life on earth exists in a thin layer of soil, water and atmosphere near the surface of the planet. All parts of this sphere of live are intricately related, and knowledge about this subject has come belatedly to mankind…. THe growing study of environment is trying to determine in what extent man’s future may depend upon the continuance on earth of other species.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. As of 2026, 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 consequences of industrialization on food chains, on the air quality, water quality, etc. had been becoming more apparent, in part thanks to books like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Murray Bookchin’s Cities in Crisis, and so forth.

In November 1965 there had been a pivotal report by the PSAC called Restoring the Quality. Of our Natural Environment

The reports about environmental damage were growing, and here we see a newspaper editorialising…

What we learn is that a sense of foreboding and concern was growing even in the late 60s, and again, as I’ve said elsewhere, a cynic might say that environmental concern is a way for people to criticise the American power elite without mentioning Vietnam, and therefore becoming one of the hated lily-livered weaklings, etc. 

What happened next in January of 1969 the Santa Barbara oil spill really marked the beginning of the modern environment movement, and within all of that, awareness of carbon dioxide build-up as a problem was most definitely there in the mix, not just among the scientists and the hippies, but also government officials. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 16, 1969 – Aussies warned about carbon dioxide build-up by top scientist

September 16, 1969 – Nobel-prize winning Australian scientist warns about carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1969

September 16, 1969 – Aussies warned about carbon dioxide build-up by top scientist – All Our Yesterdays

September 16, 1994 – International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer

September 16, 2015 – Turns out big companies are ‘climate hypocrites’?

Categories
United States of America

A shout out to Sagan? – did The Newsroom do some stunt casting?

There’s a classic clip from a 2014 episode of the TV show “The Newsroom” that I end up reposting every now and then.  An “EPA” administrator is invited onto the show to discuss a just-released report about climate change and its possible impacts. The anchordroid, played by Jeff Daniels, gets a bit more than he bargained for.


Anyway, thanks to the wonders of the Youtube algorithm I just noticed something that had been purloined-lettering for a while. 

Take a look at the actor they hired to play the administrator.

Now, here’s Carl Sagan, talking about carbon dioxide build-up to a bunch of Senators in December 1985 (after the pivotal October 1985 Villach meeting).

It MAY just be a coincidence. In fact, it  almost certainly is:  I mean, middle-aged white men all look the same, amirite? And of course they’ll be wearing the suit and tie, signifiers of Sober Responsibility (and ‘professionalism’).  

But I wonder – I like to think – that whoever was casting the role had Sagan in mind. Who knows?

Further reading

December 10, 1985 – Carl Sagan testified to US Senators on #climate danger

November 30, 2014 – US TV show The Newsroom tackles climate change

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 15, 2010 – BHP says carbon tax is essential

Sixteen years ago, on this day, September 15th, 2010, 

THE world’s biggest mining company, BHP Billiton, is urging the Gillard government to impose a tax on carbon before any international agreement.

This is in order to protect Australia’s long-term economic interests. BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers has also warned the government not to try to change the terms of the pre-election mining tax deal negotiated with the big three miners.

In a major address yesterday, Mr Kloppers made it clear the mining industry did not intend to be passive in the face of the political uncertainty created by minority government.

BP bod Marius Kloppers speech to Australian Business Chamber of Commerce http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2010/9/16/cleantech/their-words-marius-kloppers

Hewett, J. 2010. BHP boss Marius Kloppers: It’s time for carbon tax. The Australian, September 16

SEE FOR POLITICAL ANALYSIS OF THIS – (Effendi and Courvisanos, 2012: 251)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2026, 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 BP had been looking at the greenhouse effect in the late 1980s as a way of flogging more uranium. It had also been mildly perturbed by the resources tax proposal of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and here we see them stirring the pot, talking about a carbon tax, global carbon tax, which is one of those delay techniques, because you know it will never happen. 

The specific context was that Julia Gillard had become Prime Minister. There was an election campaign happening. 

What I think we can learn from this is that incumbents like BHP, who’d also been involved in the so-called Greenhouse Challenge bullshit, are pretty astute when they want to be and can claim brownie points for advocating things that they know aren’t going to happen.

What happened next Gillard did not win the next election, but she was able to form a minority government, the price of which, though, was that she introduced carbon pricing, leading to real hilarity (ymmv).

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 15, 1830 – Manchester-Liverpool railway opened

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra

September 15, 1982/1990 – “Environmental Justice” is born. And so is Captain Planet…

September 15,1990 – Captain Planet launches

September 15, 1996 – A CCS posterchild is born: Sleipner Field comes online.

September 15, 2005 – “A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees launched by FOE Australia”

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…

Categories
Film Reviews

Film Review: “Pressure” – what we can learn from D-Day…

Dr Aaron Thierry reviews Pressure.

Anthony Maras’s Pressure, adapted from David Haig’s stage play, turns the weather forecast before D-Day into a story about how leaders handle risk, and it works as a pointed allegory for the climate crisis. On the surface the film follows the race to predict conditions over the Channel in June 1944. Underneath, the friction between British meteorologist James Stagg (Andrew Scott) and American forecaster Irving Krick (Chris Messina), with General Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) caught between them, plays out the same fight we are having now over evidence and political will. The film all but says so. In one scene Stagg lays out why weather shapes everything people do, and it is hard to hear that in 2026 without thinking past 1944.

Stagg carries the weight of the film. Faced with unstable North Atlantic systems, he refuses to lean on historical averages and insists on tracking the raw, shifting facts. That makes him an  unwelcome presence in the command room, and the pressure on him to soften his forecast never lets up. The parallel with climate scientists working under public scrutiny is obvious. Stagg’s duty is to the weather as it actually is, whatever the generals want to hear, and his refusal to bend is the film’s clearest statement of what scientific integrity costs. The moment he tells the room that facts are facts is the film in miniature.

Krick is his opposite. He works from analogue charts, assuming that because past Junes were clear, this one will be too. His confidence is appealing because it tells authority exactly what it wants to hear, which is that the plan can go ahead as scheduled. The film sets Stagg’s method against Krick’s, and the difference is plain. Krick is choosing the years that suit him and calling it a forecast. The echo of modern climate denial is hard to miss. Using past stability as a guide to a system that has stopped behaving is a gamble, and Krick is gambling with hundreds of thousands of lives.

Eisenhower sits between them, and his handling of the decision is where the allegory bites hardest. He cannot delay. When he sets out what rides on the forecast, the scale of the decision lands, and so does the fact that nobody else can make it for him. He listens to the uncomfortable forecast, sets aside the convenient one, and makes an agonising call on the basis of what the data actually supports. The contrast with political leaders who defer climate action past the next election is unmistakable. Governing well means acting on a warning before the disaster arrives.

Pressure reaches past its wartime setting to make a case about the present. Stagg’s courage and Eisenhower’s accountability show what breaking the climate stalemate would require, and Krick shows how easy it is to choose the comforting story instead. The film’s message is plain. When the risk is systemic, picking illusion over evidence invites the disaster you were trying to avoid.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 14, 1994/1999 – Carbon tax shenanigans

Thirty two years ago, on this day, September 14th, 1994,

A carbon tax, which could have a significant impact on Australia’s resources sector, will be examined as part of the Federal Government’s business tax reforms.

While it is not one of the Ralph report recommendations, a paper has been prepared by Treasury that is expected to be used by the Government when it begins negotiations with the Australian Democrats on the business tax reform package.

In negotiations to secure approval for the Government’s landmark business tax reforms, the Democrats are expected to push for a more systematic approach to Australia’s commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions under the Kyoto targets. This might involve a tax on emissions or other measures, such as greenhouse credits for tree plantations.

Dodson, L. and Lewis, S. 1999. Government puts carbon tax on agenda. The Australian Financial Review, 14 September, p.1.

AND

Industry has reacted with horror to the prospect of a carbon tax being floated simultaneously with the release of the Federal Government’s business tax reform package.

WMC executive officer Mr Ray Evans described the Government’s decision to float a carbon tax proposal as “a unilateral act of self-mutilation”.

1999 Hordern, N. 1999. Industry greets plan for carbon tax with horror. The Australian Financial Review, 15 September, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359/368ppm. As of 2026, 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 … well, look,one of the obvious things you do when bad things are happening is you disincentivize them. You either make them illegal or you raise the economic /social price.

The idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide had been pushed by Barry Jones, the Science Minister, or at least mentioned by him in 1988/9 but the basic idea had gone back to 1965, if you look at the President’s Scientific Advisory Council report, Restoring the Quality of Our Natural Environment.

And the proposal for a carbon tax had been there in the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy papers, and it had been kiboshed, and it was now on the table in 1994 again as part of the budget discussions, and so that the Environment Minister John Faulkner would have something in his hand to go to the first COP in the way that Ros Kelly, the Environment Minister in 1990 needed something in her hand for the Second World Climate Conference. 

Five years later, the idea of an emissions carbon tax was dead. Long live an emissions trading scheme. 

What I think we can learn from this is that putting a price on carbon was a small but useful part of the policy solutions, it was not liked by the incumbents, and therefore it was attacked with ferocity and finesse. 

What happened next. An emissions trading scheme proposal was defeated in 2000 thanks to South Australian Senator Nick Minchin, and again in 2003 thanks to John Howard acting on his own. It was not until 2006/7 that an emissions trading scheme became “inevitable.” Kevin Rudd still managed to fuck it up as Prime Minister, and it was left to Julia Gillard to clean up the mess, but her scheme only lasted a couple of years before it was then abolished by Tony Abbott. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 14, 1991 – the Green Wave has receded….

September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

September 14, 1994 – Business told to brace for climate regulation/tax (which it then handily defeats)

September 14, 2004 – Blair “shocked” by scientists warnings – “time is running out for tackling climate change”

Categories
Australia Coal

September 13, 1991 – Australians worry about coal exports…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1991,

Export markets for Australian coal could start to disappear by the end of the decade because of advancing energy technology. Overseas research is concentrating on treatments to make coal burn more efficiently. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has made research into the field a priority to defend Australian markets.

Forman, D. 1991. CSIRO crusades for coal’s future. BRW, September 13

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 negotiations for the climate treaty, which would become the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, were underway, and the Australians are beginning to realise that a strict treaty might actually have impacts on the amount of coal they can flog to developing nations. This is also the exact moment that it’s becoming clear that Bob Hawke will not be Prime Minister for much longer, and that Paul Keating, who hates environmentalism and environmentalists, will be grabbing the throne.

What I think we can learn from this is the old line, follow the money. It’s not much more complicated than that. It is somewhat more complicated, but not that much more. 

What happened next Australia became an opponent of climate action, and here we are completely fucked with emissions climbing, well plateauing at about 40 billion tonnes a year, concentrations climbing, and as the sinks fail, those concentrations will climb more quickly, regardless of emissions, unless emissions take a massive nosedive. No one’s explained to me how they think emissions are going to take a massive nose dive. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 13, 1661 – Fumifugium!

September 13, 1856 – the game’s a Foote

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

September 13, 1984 – unsettling Seattle workshop on sea level rise

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

Categories
Activism

September 12, 2011 – Climate Defence Fund 

Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 12th, 2011, Climate Defence Fund inspired by blog

“On September 12, 2011, Scott Mandia posted a “Dear Colleagues” letter on his blog. It started, “Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed to Chris Horner and the American Tradition Institute who are using Freedom of Information (FOI) to harass researchers.” The outpouring of support was overwhelming. In less than 24 hours, Scott received $10,000 in small donations from scientists, students, and other concerned individuals. This went a long way toward helping solve immediate legal needs. Legal bills for scientists continued to mount, so it became apparent that a permanent organization was needed.” http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. As of 2026, 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 opponents of climate action had been targeting individual scientists in what Michael Mann, one of the targets, called the “Serengeti Strategy” since the mid 1990s. The first prominent target was Ben Santer, though there were others. Targeting of individuals and of organisations continued, especially with the so-called “climategate” hacks.

And when there are attacks, there is defence, hopefully, and here we see the birth of the Climate Defence Fund.

What I think we can learn from this is that the war is never ending, and one side has the facts on its side, and the other side has money, access to media, etc. 

What happened next – the denialism, defunding and destruction have reached new highs (or lows) under Trump 2.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 12, 1958 – Letter in The Times about … carbon dioxide build-up

September 12, 1994 – Greenpeace lays into Keating government over climate failure

 September 12, 2003 – Newcastle Herald thinks the future of coal looks ‘cleaner’…

September 12, 2023 – Gone with the wind

Categories
United States of America

September 11, 1912 – C.H. van Hise; “Earth is a Big Coal Stove”

One hundred and fourteen years ago, on this day, September 11th, 1912, an article based on a book by American geologist  Charles Richard Van Hise (May 29, 1857 – November 19, 1918) appears…

Lincoln Journal Star (Lincoln, Nebraska) · Wed, 11 Sept 1912 · Page 5

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 295ppm. As of 2026, 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 in 1895 Svante Arrhenius had given his lecture and written his article for the Philosophical Magazine. It had had some impact, but not necessarily that much. 

The specific context was that, well, see it acknowledged that C H. V. Van Hise had been writing about this and that it had appeared in geography textbooks without anyone raising an eyebrow.

What I think we can learn from this It was simple, straightforward 19th century physics. It wasn’t part of a culture war. It was just accepted. 

What happened next Van Hise died in 1918. In 1938 Guy Callendar gave the CO2 theory a big push, and in 1953 Gilbert Plass gave it an even biger one.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 11, 1961 – New York Times reports “Air Found Gaining in Carbon Dioxide”

September 11, 1969 – George Brown proposes an omnibus environment bill

September 11, 1973 – CIA coup topples Chilean democracy

September 11, 1989 – Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature” published

September 11, 2006 – Australian climate concern hits tipping point (maybe)

September 11, 2015 – Pacific Island leaders fail to shift Australia and New Zealand…

Categories
Australia United States of America

September 10, 2001 – Bush asks Howard “which side are you on, boy, which side are you on?”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 10th, 2001,

US President George “Dubya” Bush asks Australian Prime Minister John Howard “will you side with US or go with Europe on Kyoto”

Manne in ‘Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead’ (2008, P28). 

(says Guy Pearse was told by well-placed source)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2026, 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 in the late 1980s the Americans had decided to stake out a position on climate that was basically “fuck you” to the entire world except their bezzies, the petro-states of the Middle East. Australia had initially been alongside the middle powers advocating for more action, but then they took a look at the amount of money they were making from exporting coal and how climate goals would upset the domestic apple cart, and they said “yeah, nah.” The president from ‘88 to ‘92 was George H. W. Bush, who had won the ‘88 election fair and square (give or take a little light race-baiting), which is more than you can say about his son, President George W. Bush in 2000. 

The specific context was that Bush had already pulled out of the Kyoto protocol, and it was fairly clear that John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, was minded to do the same, but he had an election coming up and wasn’t going to make the announcement before that. Howard was on a trip to the United States, and this exchange happened according to one source at this time. 

What I think we can learn from this It’s not too late to get John Howard and George W. Bush to The Hague for crimes against humanity. 

What happened next Well, the next day was September 11th, 2001.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 10, 1957 – The Times covers the International Geodesy Conference…

September 10, 1973- Ozone concerns on display in Kyoto…

September 10, 2007 – shiny #climate promises versus grim reality

September 10, 2008 – Greenpeace Kingsnorth protesters acquitted

September 10, 2015 – one of those “whither CCS?” articles