Twenty two years ago, on this day, November 22, 2000, climate protesters stormed the stage at the COP6 negotiations in The Hague.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1036211.stm
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that three years after the Kyoto negotiations ITwas obvious that the UNFCCC process was again going nowhere. Bands of climate protesters descended upon the Hague, which had been the scene of a 1989 meeting on climate in order to say “get moving.”
The Hague process ended in disarray andwas the first and only time there was no formal end to the meeting. So they had to continue in Bonn the following June or July.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, November 21, 2013, a report is published in The Guardian that then UK Prime Minister Dave Cameron (and now Foreign Secretary) had told his civil servants to “cut the green crap.”
21 Nov 2013 Guardian reports on “Cut the Green Crap”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that seven years previously David Cameron had been all “hug a husky” while using the environment to detoxify the Tory brand (how’s that working out for you?). Once in government, he had been forced by the Liberal Democrats to make some moves on climate. But he was head of a party that, on the whole, does not accept the science, does not understand the depth of the problem we face. And so because they wanted to save money, they decided to “cut the green crap.”.
What I think we can learn from this
It’s a banal point, but if you take politicians at face value, and you don’t understand that they know what you want to hear, and they’re incentivized – especially when in opposition – to say it to you, then you will be … one word is disappointed. Another word is shafted. The only way you’re going to get good results or less terrible results is by holding the feet of politicians to the fire. But to do that, you need a variety of mechanisms. It can’t just be sending off a check to Friends of the Peace or Green Earth or whatever. You also need to be part of granular, resilient radical, social movement organisations. But the problem there is that these organisations do not exist and if they are started they usually quickly flame out or become tribute bands to themselves mindlessly performing zombie rituals, which made them feel good at the outset.
I may have digressed.
What happened next
The “green crap” was cut. Fracking was promoted. Nuclear had yet more money thrown at it. Then May and Johnson made nice sounding statements. Then Truss wasn’t around long enough to swing the axe, but Sunak….
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.
On this day a new business lobby group was founded…
Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) is a coalition of businesses coordinated by Ceres whose primary goal is to call on the U.S. government to pass broad, bi-partisan energy and climate legislation.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by August 2008 it was likely that – whoever was next president – there was going to be a push for climate action because Republican candidate John McCain was not a climate denier. And Barack Obama as a Democrat was going to have to pander to his constituencies (even though Obama had made vague comments about having lots of coal while on the campaign trail).
So, if you know that the next President is going to be more willing to do something on climate then George Bush (which, frankly, is a pretty low bar) then you’re going to want to get a lobby group together that can credibly push the versions of policy that you want, as opposed to what the radical civilization-hating communist Luddite greenies want.
And of course if you’re a specific company under attack for planet-butchering, then membership of such a pressure group can also be used in your adverts when you’re trying to convince consumers that the latest version of the crap that you peddle – that they maybe need but probably merely want – is somehow “green,” and that they’re doing something good for the planet by buying it (spoiler they are almost certainly not).
And so BICEP was born.
What we learn
See above
what happened next
BICEP kept going as far as I know, it’s still going, still doing its thing. Whether it got up on its hind legs, and attacked the Trump administration is another question. Probably played dead.
Fifty years ago, on this day, November 20, 1973, a researcher asked the question in the blog title.
1973 Is the west Antarctic ice sheet disintegrating? T Hughes, Journal of Geophysical Research. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC078i033p07884
While there is no explicit mention of climate, it shows the ideas was around, and perhaps put the idea in Mercer’s head?
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was people had been looking at sea level rise for a while. They knew that the ice-caps were melting (different causes were being thrown around). The above article does not mentioned carbon dioxide buildup. It is just part of the general pattern of well, “the world’s getting warmer” and there are consequences for that…
What I think we can learn from this/what we should know.
The crucial thing is that while the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is sitting on bedrock, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is basically a lot of ice perched on mountain tops. So much less stable because warmer water can get underneath and loosen it.
What happened next
In 1978 John Mercer’s paper “West Antarctic ice sheet and C02 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster” was published in Nature. It didn’t cite the Hughes 1973 paper, but it DID cite the following –
Hughes, T. 1975. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet: Instability, disintegration, and initiation of Ice Ages. Reviews of Geophysics, Volume13, Issue 4, Pages 502-526 https://doi.org/10.1029/RG013i004p00502
Btw, the answer to Hughes’ 1973 question has become an emphatic “hell yes.”
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.
On this day, November 20, 19330, the man who would later be known as The Fox – the first “ecotage” of the late 1960s upsurge, was born.
James F. Phillips (November 20, 1930 – October 3, 2001) was an American schoolteacher and environmental activist who became known in the Chicago area during the 1960s for his environmental direct action under the pseudonym The Fox.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in 1962 “Silent Spring” had woken everything up to the consequences of industrialisation. Through the 1960s there was more and more concern about pollution – air, water etc. By the late 1960s, people were freaking out. And taking (symbolic) action. See below –
See also the book “Ecotage 1972
What we can learn – “ecotage” has been around a long long time. And the history deserves more acknowledgement, because it might inspire us…
What happened next.
Despite the efforts of individuals and organisations, the damage has kept piling up at our feet. It’s too late now to avoid severe consequences for “our” actions. It may not be too late to avert the very worst, but I for one don’t think we will…
Sixty five years ago, on this day, November 19, 1958, at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting Dr C Leake warns of carbon dioxide build up. This is reported the following day in the Times.
Anon. 1958. Air Pollution Menace to Health. The Times, November, 20, p.16
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by the late 1950s scientists (especially American ones) were switching on to the threat of carbon dioxide build-up, and talking about it.
What I think we can learn from this
Nobody pushed back, really. In a “liberal democracy” the active resistance only starts when you threaten established economic and political interests.
What happened next? It’s unclear if Leake continued warning. The carbon dioxide issue goes a bit quieter in the 60, for various reasons (no news hook, not enough confirmed science/data to justify etc).
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.
Eighty years ago, on this day, November 19, 1943, the burn-enormous-amounts-of-petrol-to-disperse-fog-so-bombers-can-land was used for the first time.
From the time of the first operational use of FIDO at Graveley on the 19/20 November 1943 until the end of the year, thirty-nine successful landings were made.
Fleming, 2007, p.56.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Guy Callendar’s bright idea of burning off fog that would prevent RAF planes from returning to base got its first actual physical use, saving crews’ lives so they could continue bombing campaigns against military targets and against civilians. It’s a war.
What I think we can learn from this
Local weather manipulation and global patterns have a backstory
What happened next
FIDO continued to get used through to the end of the war.
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.
Sixty three years ago, on this day, November 19, 1960, English steam engineer Guy Callendar noted that the carbon dioxide theory was not universally accepted.
In 1961 he published the results of his study in the Quarterly Journal, concluding that the pattern of recent climatic warming was not incompatible with his hypothesis of increased carbon dioxide radiation.”67 …. As this paper was going to press, Callendar wrote a note listing “[Four] reasons for the unpopularity of CO2 theory in some meteorological quarters.” Although there was no organized opposition to anthropogenic climate change at the time, Callendar’s note reads much like a contemporary response to global warming skeptics:
a. The idea of a single (easily explained) factor causing world wide climatic change seems impossible to those familiar with the complexity of the forces on which any and every climate depends.
b. The idea that man’s actions could influence so vast a complex [system] is very repugnant to some.
c. The meteorological authorities of the past have pronounced against it, mainly on the basis of faulty observations of water vapour absorption, but also because they had not studied the problem to anything like the extent required to pronounce on it.
d. Last but not the least. They did not think of it themselves!
68. CP 1, Levinson, 19 November 1960
Source: James Roger Fleming 2007 The Life and Times of Guy Stewart Callendar (1898–1964) p.82
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Callendar had continued writing after the war on climate and had corresponded extensively with Gilbert Plass, the man most responsible for bringing the carbon dioxide theory to prominence in the United States.
This article with these notes to himself was written after he’d submitted something for publication. And they bear thinking about in terms of why good ideas or sound ideas don’t go further. It’s classic, “not invented here” syndrome. People are unwilling to accept good ideas from people they don’t like.
What I think we can learn from this
is that awareness of intellectual resistance to facts is hardly novel. Even around climate, it goes back further than perhaps you think
What happened next
Callendar’s paper got published. It was his last one. Callendar died in early 1964, on the same day of the year as Svante Arrhenius who died in 1927 (LINK).
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.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 18, 1998, Australian Prime Minister John Howard trolls the environmentalists and the planet by appointing a coal guy as “environment minister”.
Australia announces new environment ambassador.
18 November 1998
CANBERRA, Nov 18 (Reuters) – Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer announced on Wednesday the appointment of senior Foreign Affairs and Trade department officer Ralph Hillman as Australia’s new Ambassador for the Environment.
Hillman, who has an extensive economic background, was most recently the Ambassador, permanent representative of Australia to the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. He replaces Meg MacDonald, who held the post since September 1997.
1998 Democrats unhappy that Ralph Hillman is now environment ambassador, with ACF more emollient –
FED – Democrats damn appointment of environment ambassador. 19 November 1998
Australian Associated Press
CANBERRA, Nov 19, AAP – The Australian Democrats today damned the appointment of economist and trade expert Ralph Hillman as Australia’s new ambassador for the environment.
Democrats environment spokeswoman Lyn Alison said the announcement that Mr Hillman would replace Meg McDonald as ambassador this month was a cynical decision.
“Mr Hillman has no obvious qualifications to be an advocate for the environment, he is more likely to work against the interests of the environmental movement,” Senator Alison said in a statement.
“The key credential Mr Hillman brings to the position is his hard-headed economic rationalism and experience in foreign affairs. This makes him just the ticket for a government that doesn’t take the environment seriously.”
But the Australian Conservation Foundation said it would work with Mr Hillman.
“We believe it is a very important job,” ACF campaigns director Michael Krockenberger told AAP.
“It is especially so as Australia faces a lot of international pressure on the environment on issues like climate change and looking after world heritage areas threatened by issues such as uranium mining in Kakadu National Park and oil shale mining at the Great Barrier Reef,” he said.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Howard liked, I think, occasionally to troll his opponents. And this was classic trolling, appointing the head of the Australian Coal Association, to be the next ambassador for the environment, a post that had been created a few years earlier during the “Greenhouse Effect” spasm.
Howard also appointed Wilson Tuckey as Minister for forestry – “ he has a sense of humour.” (quote from Hamilton)
What I think we can learn from this is that by putting these sorts of people in these sorts of positions, you send the message – you demoralise your opponents, you destroy the credibility of organisations and institutions to poison the well. In other words,
What happened next
Howard kept trolling – his best was using World Environment Day to announce, in 2002, that he would submit the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed, forward for ratification.
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.
Sixty years ago, on this day, November 18, 1953 Harold Macmillan, who would go on to be British Prime Minister, told the truth about the function of (most) committees set up by politicians.
"The Macmillan Manoeuvre" – a new short video. Not great, not terrible. Tell me what you think… Tips for improving general technique very welcome. pic.twitter.com/XXs9umj2D2
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The London Smog of 1952 had killed 4000 people. Even though most of these were The Old and The Sick, still the cry went up, “something must be done.” So the Beaver committee (chaired by Sir Hugh Beaver) was set up…
The game is the game. But sometimes, thanks to external factors and pushing, committees’ recommendations do actually get implemented and matter…
What happened next
The Beaver Report made a series of recommendations, and as if by magic, the 1956 Clean Air Act.
Macmillan became Prime Minister in 1957, after Anthony Eden suffered a little local difficulty over the Suez Canal.
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.
