Categories
Coal United Kingdom

April 10, 1979 – National Coal Board top scientist versus 19th century physics

On this day, 47 years ago,   Joseph Gibson, chief scientist at the National Coal Board, was keen to dampen concern and examination of coal’s global environmental impacts. With palpable glee he wrote a letter on April 10 1979 to the Chairman (Brian Flowers) and the board members.      

“I promised to let Board members have a copy of the IEA report on the greenhouse effect…. The only firm fact so far is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. It is concluded that there is no evidence of a rise in global temperature due to this concentration increase at present.” He then goes on to quote from the work, by Irene Smith – “There is little evidence to support either a complacent or an alarmist attitude…”

(Gibson, J. 1979 Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect. April 10 TNA COAL 30/414)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the National Coal Board had been explicitly aware of carbon dioxide build up since (at the latest) 1972, and was looking for an excuse not to have to do much. And in Irene Smith’s work, they were able to cherry pick what they wanted. 

The specific context was that Gibson was surely aware that in other parts of the British state apparatus an “Interdepartmental Group on Climatology” was about to present a report.

What I think we can learn from this is that people who are comfortable in their own way of thinking find it hard to take new threats seriously until they are staring them in the face. 

What happened next:  The National Coal Board hired some people to do some work on the carbon dioxide work. This was good stuff, but it all kind of didn’t contribute in the way that it could have, not because those people were less than stellar, but simply because the Thatcher governments had other fish to fry. And Thatcher had made it clear herself that she wasn’t going to “worry about the weather”.  

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: 

April 10, 2006 – “Business warms to change” (Westpac, Immelt) – All Our Yesterdays

April 10th, 2010 – activists hold “party at the pumps”

April 10, 2013 – US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

April 9, 2011 –  rally in Brisbane about coal exports

Fifteen years ago today

“Next Saturday it’s time for Queenslanders to let our politicians know that we support Queensland and Australia’s clean energy future – and the many new jobs and business opportunities it will create.

On Saturday 9th at 11am we’re uniting with our friends from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition , GetUp! , Greenpeace , Oxfam , Australian Conservation Foundation , World Wildlife Fund and Union Climate Connectors to support real action against climate change.

It’s time to make the big polluters pay their fair share and unlock Australia’s clean energy future. By acting now we can stay healthy, secure our environment, protect jobs and build new clean industries.

This is a family friendly gathering where we’ll hear speakers who understand the science and we’ll celebrate our positive message for change in Australia.

So come along on Saturday the 9th at 11am in King George Square, bring some mates and take a stand in support of fair and effective action on climate change.”

http://transitionkenmoredistrict.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/rally-for-climate-action-brisbane-april.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Queensland has always been a brutal place for descent of any kind, for. If you’re the wrong skin colour, the wrong sexual orientation, the wrong class, etc.. 

The specific context was that in 2011 the climate issue was still front page news – was especially front page news in Australia. Since late 2006 Australia’s political elites had been wrangling and wrestling with the very idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide – ostensibly in order to reduce Australia’s domestic emissions (actually it was largely about finding ways to continue with business as usual). There was nothing, of course, in this about exports of coal, because that was on someone else’s books

What I think we can learn from this is that an educated populace understands what’s at stake, but does not have the power to force the elected and unelected leaders of society to behave intelligently.

What happened next:  The carbon price was finally instituted. It began operation in July 22,012, but was abolished by Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in 2014 

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: 

 April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

April 9, 1991 – Peter Walsh goes nuts, urges BHP to sue Greenpeace – All Our Yesterdays

April 9, 2008 – US school student vs dodgy (lying) text books

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

Categories
International processes IPCC Science Scientists

April 8, 1995 – Fred Pearce writes “World lays odds on global catastrophe”….

Thirty one years ago today, New Scientist lays it out…

Fred Pearce article in New scientist about IPCC World Lays odds… 8-4-1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the New Scientist magazine had been going since the late 50s, And in an early issue, it had reported on carbon dioxide build up link and through the 70s and 80s, it had been regularly reported on the topic.   

The specific context was that Fred Piearce had been at the Berlin COP which had just finished, and it was clear that progress was going to be much slower than it had initially been hoped and it needed to be. And Pearce was not stupid, and he was not hopeful about our chances of not being incredibly stupid. 

Pearce has a new book out, btw. Despite It All: A Handbook for Climate Hopefuls

What I think we can learn from this is that a decent science journalist is a relatively good guide to life. 

What happened next:  Well, the COPs are still going, but the emissions have climbed and climbed and climbed and the atmospheric concentrations are now climbing very rapidly, and we are in a world of shit of our own devising. What do we do about it? I don’t know that there is much that we can do. To be honest, why am I doing this? Because I can, because it’s a habit, because I don’t know why I’m doing this.

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: 

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate – All Our Yesterdays

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Australia

April 7, 2006 – Howard versus moths and cockatoos …

Twenty years ago today, governments make their usual big empty promises…

On 7 April, two days after the Bald Hills decision, Neil Mitchell of 3AW put the Prime Minister on the spot in relation to a housing project west of Melbourne at Melton, saying ‘there’s a $400 million development out there at risk’ because of the elusive and endangered grassland-dwelling Golden Sun Moth. The Prime Minister was unaware of the moth. Still he promised ‘I will investigate that’. Other stories queried whether the endangered red-tailed black cockatoo would ‘sink a $650 million pulpmill’ in SA, and whether the little known flatback turtle would continue to raise an issue for Chevron’s $11 billion Gorgon gas project off the northwest coast of Western Australia.

(Prest, 2007: 253)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 election with a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor, but this had not won them for the election. Small-g greens had come out for Labor, and the Liberals decided they had been “stabbed in the back” and that all of this was all climate change stuff was a socialist hokum. John Howard, who had become prime minister 10 years before the events described here, had done everything in his power to protect the fossil fuel industry and to quash the growth in renewables and to prevent international action. 

The specific context was that Howard was beginning to look old, beginning to lose his grip. Kyoto had, in fact, finally been ratified by enough nations to come into force, and negotiations for a success and protocol were underway. 

Also, the Australian Conservation Foundation had teamed up with various banks, for example, including Westpac, and released a study with the laughable title “early action on climate change”  that was a couple of days before this. And Howard’s environment minister was maybe not quite as sharp as either of them thought and had managed to create opportunities for people to poke fun. This latest one was the apparent John Howard beginning to not quite be on top of things. We now know that late 2006 was the year that the dam broke and that Howard stopped being invincible and started to look very, very beatable for the 2007 election.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are usually cracks in the dam. Sometimes these cracks just stay there. Other times, with hindsight, you can see that floods about to begin. 

What happened next:  Howard not only lost the 2007 election, but he also lost his own seat.

 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: 

April 7, 1980 – C02 problem is most important issue… “another decade will slip by” warns Wally Broecker to Senator Tsongas

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

April 7, 2010 – Ziggie tries to sprinkle Stardust – 50 nuclear reactors by 2050 – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
On This Day

On this day April 6 – culture wars, business breaking with silence and genetically engineered humans…

The culture wars aren’t going to sustain themselves, you know – there’s gotta be new rage all the time.

 April 6, 2006 – Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

Business is beginning to break cover, for what it is worth (not much!)

April 6, 2006 – the anti-climate dam of John Howard begins to crack…

Easier to change our genes than our social and economic priorities, apparently…

April 6, 2012 – Genetically-modified humans? – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International Geophysical Year

 April 5, 1950 – IGY born at a dinner

Seventy six years ago,

The idea for the IGY is said to have taken off at a dinner hosted by the American geophysicist James Van Allen and his wife, Abigail Halsey Van Allen, on 5 April 1950.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that World War Two had set off an astonishing amount of accelerated progress around the ability to travel the world, to measure the world, etc, etc, radar, sonar, jet engines, the promise of satellites, etc. 

The specific context was that the Cold War was on, all these concerns around whether modification etc were live, and a dinner at which the IGY was brainstormed makes a neat starting point and is worthy of further study. If I recall correctly, Fred Singer was present, which is kind of ironic.

What I think we can learn from this is that the longest journey starts with a single step. An avalanche begins with a single rock falling. 

What happened next:   the IGY did take place from July 1, 1957 to December 31 1958 and amidst that awareness of concerns about carbon dioxide build up started to hit the public. For example, the 1958 documentary by Frank Capra, the Unchained Goddess, needs to be seen in that context.

Also on this day: 

April 5, 2005 – Coal21 holds first conference

April 5, 1971- a UK scientist explains “pollution in context”

April 5, 2008 – Charlton Heston dies, star of first movie to mention the greenhouse effect

Categories
Nuclear Power Sweden

April 4, 1979 – Olof Palme u-turns on nuclear referendum

47 years ago today, the Swedish Prime Minister decides on a referendum

“The nuclear policy controversy came to a head following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Olof Palme, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, had for a long time been a strong supporter of nuclear power and against a nuclear referendum. On April 4, 1979, however, after a week of intense media coverage of the nuclear accident, Palme, afraid of losing more antinuclear supporters to the Center Party in the upcoming September 1979 elections, announced that he was in favor of a nuclear referendum. Within hours the other parties agreed to Palme’s suggestion.” (Lofstedt 1992: 4) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Palme had been made aware about climate change from carbon dioxide quite some time ago. In April 1974 he had been briefed on it by Herman Flohn. In November 1974, Palme had spoken about it publicly.

The specific context was that energy politics is always messy!

What I think we can learn from this is that energy politics are always messy. And that some referenda matter more than others.

What happened next:  

A non-binding referendum on nuclear power was held in Sweden on 23 March 1980.[1] Three proposals were put to voters. The second option, the gradual phasing out of nuclear power, won a narrow plurality of the vote, receiving 39.1% of the ballots cast to 38.7% for option 3.[2] Option 1 was the least popular, receiving only 18.9% of the votes.[2]

The actual long term result of the nuclear power politics in Sweden after the referendum has been most similar to option 1 which did not change ownership of nuclear power plants. Some were fully private and others owned by the government, and this did not change much. High profits in hydroelectric generation were not excessively taxed. Although some of the nuclear power plants were decommissioned, the Swedish government decided to reverse the policy.[3]

1980 Swedish nuclear power referendum – Wikipedia

Also on this day

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC Working Group Five

April 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-up

April 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Academia United States of America

April 4, 1979 – DOE and AAS meeting

Forty seven years ago today, they’re half-way through what SHOULD have been a crucial meeting…

2-6  April Annapolis Maryland DOE and AAAS meeting on social science and climate.

CRIPSIN TICKELL PRESENT – see his October 1979 article in EUROPE

YOU HAVE DONE THIS ONE!!
April 4, 1979 – DOE and AAAS meet on social science and climate – All Our Yesterdays

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1977 the Department of Energy had been hosting conferences, famously Miami Beach in March of 77 and commissioning reports about carbon dioxide build up. The Carter administration was “on it” as it were – or the Carter administration wasn’t, but people working in the DOE were. And I think a lot of this is probably down to a nuclear physicist called Alvin Weinberg. Anyway, here we are in April of 79 and the crucial things here are that 

  1. Tom Wigley of the Climatic Research Unit was present and presenting.

b) Crispin Tickell, then the consigliere for Roy Jenkins, was present at this meeting. We know this thanks to Tickell’s October 1979 article in Europe magazine.

The specific context was that by 1979 smart people were beginning to “freak out”, in a very measured and contained way.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known for so long.  And done so little (well, made the whole shituation much worse).  

What happened next:  

Nature ran an editorial in May 1979 that namechecked this conference. The DOE asked people like Schelling to do a report on the societal implications that was released in early 1980 and whatever progress was being made towards tackling the carbon dioxide problem was halted with the coming of the Ronald Reagan gang in January of 1981 and here we are completely fine. Fuck. Risk. 

Also on this day

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC Working Group Five

April 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-up

April 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Australia Denial Kyoto Protocol

April 3, 2001 – Kyoto Protocol most serious challenge to Australian sovereignty since Coral Sea

On this day 25 years ago a nutjob wrote…

 Australian government is being applauded by corporate polluters and corporate front groups at home and abroad. The Global Climate Coalition, the major front group for US corporate polluters, features on its web site an article by Alan Wood in the April 3 Australian (<http://www.globalclimate.org>). Wood’s article, titled “Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests”, urges Australia to back the US in pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.

Wood comments favourably on a paper written by climate sceptic Alan Oxley for the Lavoisier Group, an Australian “think tank” which argues that the Kyoto Protocol poses “the most serious challenge to our sovereignty since the Japanese fleet entered the Coral Sea on 3 May, 1942”.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

AND

The US has called Europe’s bluff, LISTEN to the Europeans and you could be forgiven for thinking George W. Bush has just sent the world to the gas chamber – the greenhouse gas chamber, that is. What Bush has really done by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol is shatter a European dream of running the international energy market, or at least a substantial bit of it.

This dream arose from a mix of Europe’s quasi-religious green fundamentalism and cynical calculation of commercial advantage. Jacques Chirac gave the game away at the failed COP6 talks at The Hague last November, when he described the protocol as “a genuine instrument of global governance”.

Wood, A. 2001. Killing Kyoto in Australia’s best interests. The Australian, 3 April, p13.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that, well, as discussed yesterday, link, the Kyoto Protocol was inadequate, but essential – necessary but wildly insufficient. What you see here is the bat shit, crazy, conspiratorial One World Government crap from someone with an academic background, but no grasp on reality. This language of sovereignty, of “taking back control” is immensely powerful and useful for the nutjobs, and they use pretty much every opportunity they can to deploy it.

So much for one fragile world. The Treaty of Westphalia is a treaty of failure, as was predicted by many observers in the late 1970s who knew that getting nations to agree to emissions cuts would be virtually impossible.

The specific context was that Bush Jnr had followed Dick Cheney’s instructions, and pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are doomed.

What happened next:  Howard pulled Australia out the following year, but this was a major factor in his eventual political demise.

Also on this day: 

April 3, 1995 and 2001 – Australia’s international trajectory – from bullshit to batshit delusion (but honest)

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

April 3, 2008 – CCS demo plant in Australia

On this day Thursday, 3 April 2008 

The World’s (then) “largest CO2 storage demo plant” opens in Victoria.

THE launch of Australia’s first carbon dioxide storage demonstration project is a “key strategic initiative in the global challenge of addressing climate change”, according to Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitchell Hooke. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that carbon capture and storage had first been proposed as a solution – a partial solution – to carbon dioxide build up in the mid 1970s by an Italian physicist, Cesar Marchetti, as part of the whole IASSA attempt to offer solutions.   

The specific context was that was10 years previously, in the late 1990s the GEODISC programme had gotten underway, and in 2001 the Prime Minister’s Science, Economics and Industry Council then chaired by Roy Batterham, (who was part time also the chief technology officer for Rio Tinto), had put forward CCS as a useful way of side-stepping climate policy and the need for behaviour change and societal transformation. There had been further insane promises about CCS during the 2000s and then in 2008 we see this pilot project begin.

What I think we can learn from this is that  these fantasy technologies have a long history, and it’s not one of success.

What happened next:  Otway kept storing trivial amounts of CO2 and it’s not clear to me that any meaningful lessons were learned. But I’m not a geologist. The big CCS project in Australia is Gorgon as per Chevron, and you can read about its stunning world changing successes here.

Also on this day: 

April 3, 1995 and 2001 – Australia’s international trajectory – from bullshit to batshit delusion (but honest)

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again