Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

September 20, 1848 – the AAAS is born…

One hundred and seventy six years ago, on this day, September 20th, 1848,

1848 – The American Association for the Advancement of Science is created.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science was created on September 20, 1848, at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was a reformation of the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists with the broadened mission to be the first permanent organization to promote science and engineering nationally and to represent the interests of American researchers from across all scientific fields

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 275ishppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that science was coming along in leaps and bounds, even in the United States of America. You can read the Wikipedia page about it here.

What we learn is that putting together these sorts of bodies is a tremendous amount of hard work, clever politicking. You have to scramble for funds. You’ve got to allay the concerns of people who feel that a bureaucracy has been created or that their own baileywick is being stomped on. And the benefits are not always self-evident, and it could go badly wrong. See that Machiavelli quote about innovation. But anyway, it happened. Its journal Science started to be published in 1880.

What happened next? AAAS was a crucial node in science as you’d hope it would be obviously distinct from the National Academies of Science and the American Meteorological Society and the National Research Council and all the rest of it though there is inevitably circulation of staff and ideas and people 

In the 100th year of the AAAS as the English biologist G Evelyn Hutchinson mentioned CO2 build up at a seminar organised by the within the AAAS General Meeting.

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: 

September 20, 1893 – first American-made gasoline-powered car hits the road.

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Categories
Academia United States of America

September 20, 1982 – “Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus” event

Forty two years ago, on this day, September 20th, 1982

Look for a file marked “carbon dioxide – climate change” and perhaps to your amazement you will read in this publication details of Reagan’s two-day gathering titled Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus, September 19-23, 1982. President Reagan’s right hand man and head of his Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Frederick A. Koomanoff, started the meeting and wrote into the record and with President Reagan’s and Congress’ full backing ..

“The Executive Branch and the Congress clearly regard the CO2 issue as one deserving serious, sustained and systematic investigation. The credit for this lies in the good science and solid research that has and is being performed.”

Will the wonders of that man ever stop? Reagan’s right hand man wasn’t all, he came at the urgency of the CO2 crisis two-fisted when his left hand man chipped in with even more in affirmation of the joint executive and congressional commitment to work to resolving climate change. That left hand was James C. Greene, Science Consultant to the Congress’ Committee on Science and Technology and he was the whip at the meeting there to make sure the attending scientists were fully engaged with the urgency of this topic.

“A veil hangs ominously over the earth, from pole to pole, over all the continents, and over the oceans,” Greene noted, adding, “To a significant degree, man has put it there. It is called simply enough, carbon dioxide pollution. If today’s worst case scenario becomes tomorrow’s reality, it will be too late to reverse the atmospheric buildup or to ameliorate the severe adverse human and environmental impacts of this pollutant. However, if we quickly develop a sufficient research program to provide the necessary answers, there may still be time to rend the veil or at least keep it from reaching the dimensions of disaster. This is a major goal of the Federal carbon dioxide research program and it requires the cooperation of scientists, governmental officials, and the citizens.”

President Reagan through his carefully scripted right and left hand men urged the scientists participating in the conference to not merely be scientists but rather to become energetic advocates, as they revealed in the prepared statement,

“Involvement of scientists at all levels of public policy development is absolutely necessary if correct decisions are to be made — C.P. Snow expressed it best in his book Science and Government, when he wrote, ‘I believe scientists have something to give which our kind of society is desperately short of … that is foresight.’ That is why I want scientists active in all the levels of government. You must provide the information and the foresight — no one else can. The carbon dioxide issue is a case in point,” and then concluded, “Until recent years, scientists were not even certain if the carbon dioxide buildup would increase or decrease the Earth’s temperature. Now, the controversy is, what is of impact and how long before it will be felt worldwide?”

So Dear Republicans fellow countrymen and women of every sort, remember the teachings of one of your heroes who knew what was important and stop with the blustering nonsense. Yes I know that the cost of doing the right thing is today being spun into a spectacular trillion dollar budget figure and comes with a cabal of folks all too eager to be appointed bankers, or is that banksters, of that money but we have a solution to that carpetbagger problem.

http://russgeorge.net/2015/12/09/dear-mr-president-please-return-to-your-old-haunts/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ronald Reagan was being a complete prick on all things environmental. Or rather the people who would put the meat-puppet Reagan into Office were being pricks, They had put James Watt and Anne Gorsuch in with the goal of destroying the Department of the Interior and the EPA. But these two asshats were making enemies too quickly and not making good results.

Someone came up with a bright idea of holding a conference which I know virtually nothing about- whose idea, what purpose what invite list but anyway, so I am speculating a bit.

What we learn. It happened and it probably acted as a safety valve so that some of the more right leaning willing to go along with whatever they were told for the sake of their careers type scientists could point to that event and say “it’s not entirely fair to accuse the Reagan administration of doing nothing.” These sorts of events or documents, useful earthing devices so that the buildup of static electricity can be dissipated harmlessly. Kind of like a lightning rod.

What happened next. Reagan continued to be an asshat, albeit an increasingly senile one (there were rumours that some around him were considering invoking the 25th Amendment).

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: 

September 20, 1893 – first American-made gasoline-powered car hits the road.

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Categories
Australia Scientists

September 19 1969 – ABC Radio warns listeners about carbon dioxide

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 19th, 1969, ABC Radio has the following programme, starring Professor Frank Fenner… Scroll down to the bold bit…

title:A MAN & HIS SCIENCE, 3

Subject Person: MACFARLANE BURNET, CHAIRMAN THE COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION 1966-69, PRESIDENT AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 1965-69

Description:

TALK BY PROFESSOR FRANK FENNER ON SIR MACFARLANE BURNET – HIS CONCERNS.

Descriptive Log:

00:00:00, Log, JOHN CHALLIS: FENNER WORKED FOR SOME YEARS WITH BURNET AND CURRENTLY BOTH ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH ECOLOGY. PARTICULARLY THE WAY CHANGES IN THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECT LIVING SPECIES. DRAWS URGENT ATTENTION TO POSSIBILITY OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY COMPLETELY DESTROYING MAN’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

PROFESSOR FRANK FENNER: WITH DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE 10,000 YEARS AGO MAN INITIATED PROGRESSIVE AND INESCAPABLE CHANGES IN ECOSYSTEMS. IMPACT BECAME DRAMATIC WHEN MAN TECHNICISED. NUMBERS AND DEMANDS INCREASED. ENERGY USAGE, PRODUCTS OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY. APART FROM POSSIBLE EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH, CHEMICAL PRODUCTS HAD REPERCUSSIONS BEYOND THE ECOSYSTEM TO WHICH THEY WERE APPLIED.

EXPERIENCE WITH IONISING RADIATION AND CIGARETTE SMOKING MADE IT CLEAR THAT MANY EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION VERY SLOW IN DEVELOPING, SO DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH LINKS BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT.

INCREASING COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS MEANS ADDING MORE CARBON DIOXIDE TO THE ATMOSPHERE FASTER THAN OCEANS CAN ASSIMILATE IT. POSSIBILITY OF MELTING POLAR ICECAP OR CREATING ICE AGE.

WAYS AUSTRALIA POLLUTING ENVIRONMENT. VULNERABLE TO EFFECTS OF LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THE DRIEST CONTINENT, NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED, AND CLIMATE LESS DEPENDABLE THAN AMERICA’S, BUT STILL SUFFICIENTLY EMPTY TO PLAN IF PERSONAL GREED AND SOCIAL APATHY DON’T CONTINUE TO DOMINATE OUR LAWMAKERS. CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF ‘GROWTH’ MYTH NEEDED. MINERAL RESOURCES OF AUSTRALIA.

SCIENCE ALONE CAN’T SOLVE PROBLEMS IT HAS LARGELY CREATED. UNLESS THE RIGHT STEPS ARE TAKEN QUICKLY MAN ON EARTH HAS TO FACE A FUTURE OF INCREASING MISERY.

Depicts Person:

FRANK FENNER, PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR JOHN CURTIN SCHOOL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, ANU 1967-1973

JOHN CHALLIS, ABC EXECUTIVE PRODUCER SCIENCE UNIT

Miscellaneous:

RECORDED AT THE MACFARLANE BURNET BIRTHDAY SYMPOSIUM.

BROADCAST 19.10.1969 AT 10.45am ON 2nd NETWORK

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that MacFarlane Burnett had already been talking about this to an Australian Conservation Foundation seminar in Melbourne. (This is back when ACF was still very much an establishment outfit.) And so we have ABC radio talking about CO2 buildup as well. This is a good five years before the Science Show’s first episode where Richie Calderr talked about it. This is a year after the BBC Radio 4 people whatever it was called, in 1968 were talking about it as per Ritchie Calder and his the UNESCO sponsored series “Science Peace and Survival”.

What we learn is that by the late 60s (and certainly by ‘68). people knew that this was a possible long term threat. You didn’t have to be a genius. You didn’t even have to have paid a lot of attention to it. The Senate Air Pollution committee, Harry Bloom nine months earlier had told them where things were going.

What happened next? There was the two to three year period of everyone freaking out about all forms of pollution (including climate change caused by carbon dioxide build-up) and then gone away because people can only bear so much reality. And also, the oil shock.

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: 

September 19, 1997 – John Howard condemns the South Pacific to hell. Again.

September 19, 1998 – Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 18, 2004 – Australian States back ETS plan

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 18th, 2004, the Melbourne Age had the following report on page 3

The Victorian Government and other states are close to finalising a plan for a groundbreaking greenhouse gas emissions trading system to curb pollution caused by industry.

Flagging a major Government focus on the environment, renewable energy and sustainability over the next five years, Premier Steve Bracks said Victoria would take a leadership role in pushing the model.

While the plan is yet to be finalised, it is likely that it would cap companies’ greenhouse gases. If companies exceeded their cap, they would have to buy credits from other companies….

Gray, D. 2004. States Push Emissions Trading Plan. The Age, 18 September, p. 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the defeat of a straightforward Carbon Tax in 1995, attention had turned to various emissions trading schemes, which had the added benefit of helping banks get rich. And economists could argue about which particular iteration was the most “efficient”, all the while ignoring the fact that these systems will be gamed. There’ll be loopholes, there will be grandfathering clauses, etc. Anyway, there have been two efforts to get the federal Emissions Trading Scheme and Prime Minister John Howard had successfully defeated two proposals for an emissions trading scheme. In 2000, Nick Minchin had been his point man, and then 2003 he had done it literally all by himself. So it was fairly obvious that if you wanted an emissions trading scheme, you’re gonna have to do it so-called “bottom up” with each state, coming up with its own, but then there being transferability and interoperability. And one of the champions for this was Bob Carr, who was still the New South Wales premier (had been since 1995). And here, they were saying that they were going to make it happen. [I don’t know why they didn’t. Did the Federales step in and tell them to go up themselves? That would be a good question to try and answer.] 

What we learn is that good ideas and semi-good ideas and wretched ideas are hard to kill off. Especially if they go with the grain of neoliberalism and are going to make some people very rich.

What happened next. The states’ scheme came to nothing. Kevin Rudd, as Labor Opposition Leader, started talking up an ETS, forcing Howard to do the same. Then the horrors of 2008 to 2012…

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: 

September 18, 2013 – Greenpeace try to occupy the “Arctic Sunrise.”

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

Categories
United States of America

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

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1987,

Policy Makers Spurred by Ozone Treaty, Considering Tackling ‘Greenhouse’

Effect, WALL ST. J., Sept. 17, 1987

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ozone treaty had just been signed. Climate scientists were seriously worried about the buildup of CO2. The September 1985 scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, sponsored by WMO UNEPand ICSU had been pivotal. And since then, US Senators had been alerted repeatedly by Carl Sagan, by NGO briefings. Joe Biden had got in on the act in the run up to his first bid for president.

What we learn is that it’s one thing to deal with a chemical that not many companies make and for which there are substitutes. IT’s somewhat more problematic when you have the whole fossil fuel sector arrayed against you and its pals in the automotive industry. 

What happened next was a God Almighty battle for five years and the forces of predatory delay were successful and continued to be successful, and still being successful in 2024… 

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: 

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

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

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

Categories
Nuclear Power

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

Seventy years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1954 the head of the Atomic Energy Commission proclaimed that there would come a time when nuclear power would provide electricity too cheap to meter.

Transmutation of the elements, — unlimited power, ability to investigate the working of living cells by tracer atoms, the secret of photosynthesis about to be uncovered, — these and a host of other results all in 15 short years. It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter — will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history,— will travel effort­lessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, — and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.”

Lewis Strauss speech on electrical energy being “too cheap to meter” – http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2009/09/too-cheap-to-meter-nuclear-quote-debate.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that nuclear energy was going to provide a useful adjunct to nuclear weapons. And one way that you get people enthused despite their fears of shit blowing up is by promising them that the electricity produced will be too cheap to meter. And so it came to pass…

What we learn – in the upswing of the hype cycle, statements that look absurd in retrospect get made.

What happened next it turns out nuclear power was never too cheap to metre. There were the inevitable cost overruns. There was the fight back by the coal industry. There was Three Mile Island which was not actually the thing that killed the nuclear power industry. The order book was pretty empty before then. I should probably watch Silkwood again.

What do we learn? Yeah, that hype happens. 

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: 

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

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

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

Categories
Australia

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

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 16th, 1969,

Call to keep world at 2,000m

MELBOURNE, Monday. — The world population should be adjusted and maintained at perhaps 2,000 million, distinguished scientist Sir Macfarlane Burnet said today.

It was one of five minimum requirements that he set down for a “stable human eco-system” or an harmonious world.

Sir Macfarlane was delivering a paper at the Felton Bequests Symposium at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in Melbourne.

Sir Macfarlane said the other requirements included a stabilisation of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to avoid the possibility of disastrous climatic change.

The theme of the symposium was the influence of scientific advances on the future of mankind. It was arranged by the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in honour of Sir Macfarlanc’s 70th birthday.

Anon, 1969. Call to keep world at 2000m. Canberra Times, 16 September, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Burnet and other Australian scientists were obviously extremely well plugged into the international networks especially around UNESCO which was acting as a key scientific source of information. Burnett was giving a talk to the great and the good because he was one of the great and the good. 

What we learn is that the great and the good heard it from the horse’s mouth. They heard it from a responsible extremely high status source. And were still able to dismiss it as “nothing to worry about.” Well, that’s not entirely fair. Some of them did freak out, like the Commonwealth Bank guy in Adelaide in 1970. 

What happened next. The scientific warnings got stronger. The CO2 emissions kept going up. The atmospheric concentrations went up. The temperatures went up.

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: 

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

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

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Norway

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

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, September 15th, 1996, a crucial part of the CCS publicity campaign came into existence.

The Sleipner Vest (West) field is used as a facility for carbon capture and storage (CCS).[1][8][9] It is the world’s first offshore CCS plant, operative since September 15, 1996.[10][11] The project, in the initial year, proved insecure due to sinking top sand.[10] However, after a re-perforation and an installation of a gravel layer in August 1997, CCS operations were secure.[10] As of 2018, one million tonnes of CO2 have been transported and injected into the formation yearly since 1996.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1991, the Norwegian government had passed a carbon tax. And this gave an incentive for the state owned oil company, Statoil, (the clue is in the name) to set up injection of CO2 into a depleted North Sea oil and gas field known as Sleipner. Also, the oil and gas they were extracting had high CO2 anyway, so they were going to need to ‘sweeten’ it anyway.

And this is really the poster child for CCS alleged as a proof of concept and is still being trotted out as “CCS works” almost 30 years later.

What we learn is that government policy can drive innovation and corporate behaviour if it’s well-designed with few loopholes, one or two incentives, etc. And it’s within the corporate skill set and their imaginations and so, it came to pass.

What happened next. Sleipner Field kept getting used as the poster child for CCS for the next 30 years because there are precious few other actually successful projects that bear much scrutiny: looking at Kemper, looking at you Boundary Dam, looking at you Gorgon. 

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: 

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

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

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

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

CANBERRA NOTEBOOK

Industry can expect tougher government action as a result of publication in the past week of Australia’s first inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. The Environment Minister, Senator John Faulkner, says he is working on a range of measures to take to Cabinet by December to help cut Australia’s gas emissions in line with international obligations.

Hooper, N. 1994. Greenhouse Action. BRW, 19 September, p.14.

and

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.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Businesses told that they can expect regulation, that they should brace for it. 

The context was that the carbon tax idea that had been promulgated, put forward in the late 80s, early 90s And then defeated was on its way back. It seemed John Faulkner who was the Environment Minister for Keating was proposing attacks that would raise some funds, needed funds for Treasury and also pay for a little bit of research and development of solar power. Business knew that business groups would fight very hard; but they were realistic that things could go wrong and that they might end up with regulation or taxation. This of course might also have been a warning in order to whip up more interest and finance from potentially affected groups, so the troops were energised; who can say. 

What we can learn is that business fights dirty and hard, obvs.

What happened next Business won that round, and almost all of the rounds to follow. 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: 

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

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

Categories
Science Scientists Sea level rise United States of America

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

Forty years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1984

Glaciers, ice sheets and sea level : effect of a CO2-induced climatic change : report of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington, September 13-15, 1984

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by now, CO2 build-up and its close cousin sea level rise were well embedded in environmental science in the United States. The EPA, the year before, had produced a big fat report. And this workshop, I guess it’s a continuation of that. 

What we learn is that our scientists have been warning us about sea level rise with graphs and numbers since the early 1980s. And without necessarily all those graphs and numbers since the 1950s. 

What happened next, scientists kept sciencing and the rapid increase in temperature and warmth of the planet led in 1988 to James Hansen giving his famous testimony to the Senate committee in June of 1988.

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: 

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

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored