Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14, 1993, the New York Times reports on industry efforts to intimidate scientists into shutting up.
As the Clinton Administration prepares to announce in the next few weeks a plan for controlling waste industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, conservatives and industry groups have mounted a renewed assault on the idea that global warming is a serious and possibly catastrophic threat.
Stevens, W. 1993. Scientists Confront Renewed Backlash on Global Warming. New York Times, September 14.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Clinton had already lost the BTU energy tax battle and was trying to recover some reputation by proposing other forms of CO2 legislation. But crucially those members of the coalition that had defeated the BTU were not downing weapons, they were up for another fight, to consolidate the break, as they say in tennis…
What I think we can learn from this is that at-will lose the opponents of action are gonna keep coming at you. And they learn from both their defeats and victories…
What happened next
The industry goons’ next famous victory was rendering Kyoto meaningless before it even happened.
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.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, September 13, 1976, a major US news network did a story on climate change.
“On September 13, 1976, ABC’s Jules Bergman did a two minute 10 second story on a National Academy of Sciences committee report on the damage done by fluorocarbons (from aerosol spray cans) to the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. Like most fluorocarbon/ ozone stories, this one cited the medical dangers of increased skin cancers, but in this case, the committee said that the most dangerous result might be a warming of the earth’s poles.”
Sachsman, 2000 The Role of Mass Media in Shaping Perceptions and Awareness of Environmental Issues
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that journalists were, by 1976. very sensitised to the climate issue. There was the prolonged drought in the United Kingdom. Stephen Schneider had released “the Genesis Strategy,” and had made various appearances on the Johnny Carson Show. So getting the climate issue into a discussion of ozone was not that much of a stretch.
What I think we can learn from this is that decent journalists will give you a tolerably accurate version of the truth. You may need to reframe some of the factoids, but especially if it’s the business press, you will more or less be able to figure what’s going on. For all the good it will do you.
We have known for 50 years that there was serious trouble ahead – longer in fact, but really from the early mid 70s both the theory and the evidence were coming together… And here we are.
What happened next
In 1977 the National Academy of Science released its report. George Brown managed to Shepherd the climate protection act or whatever it was called into law Carter signed this time next year ear and there was a flurry of newspaper articles and presumably television reports about the dangers of continuing to rely on coal and here we are.
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 years ago, on this day, September 12, 2003, the Newspaper Herald, in the heart of New South Wales coal country, reports on coal industry leaders promising cleaner coal…
ANY “sunset” scenario for the Hunter’s coal industry would be a cleaner one, industry leaders said yesterday.
Using Coal21, a paper put together by the state and federal governments as a starting point, panellists looked at whether the billion dollar industry had a use-by date a “sunset”.
NSW Minerals Council executive director John Tucker said many in the industry believed the move to more diverse energy sources would start to occur in big numbers in 40 to 50 years.
Hennessy, C. 2003. Future Of Coal Looks `cleaner’. The Newcastle Herald,13 September
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia was in the middle of an enormous minerals boom and becoming very wealthy indeed. Mind you not everyone – the Gini Coefficient was going up and up the minerals boom included coal exports. The fear that eventually there would be restrictions on coal use meant that there were all kind of wheezes about “clean coal” and forums were being carried out. This was one of them.
What I think we can learn from this is that a lipstick will always be found if the pig is particularly valuable. That is to say people will always try to slap the word clean or green or sustainable on whatever on very unclean ungreen unsustainable crap that they are doing. Partly so they can sleep at night, partly so they can recruit more people into the industry, get investors. And partly to make it harder to regulate them.
And there are entire industries made up of individuals and companies who will assist in this lipsticking. And we want to believe those lies, because then we don’t have to do anything particularly difficult or uncomfortable, we can just go with the flow and still get what we want.
What happened next
Twenty years later they are still selling coal from the Hunter. And we’re all going to die. Why? Because these coal mines are death factories.
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.
Fifty years ago, on this day, September 11, 1973, the planes started bombing the Parliament, the troops started shooting, and the elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, was killed.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Allende had been in the rifle sites for a while. “Make the economy scream”, Nixon had said. Meanwhile, various theorists of technology were trying to figure out how you could have the advantages of automation computers feedback loops without creating a dictatorship of the higher order. So how could technology be used to make smarter more democratic decisions? One of the people thinking in these terms was Stafford Beer who was trying to get a program around this going in in Chile. Would it have worked? Almost certainly not. But it would have been nice to learn from the failures and try again and again until there were ways it could succeed? Yes.
What I think we can learn from this is that in general socialist democracy scared the s*** out of Nixon, Kissinger ITT etc. The threat of a good example and all that… And it reminds me of that anecdote from Carl Rogers about the experimental factory where profits remain high but managers realise they would have to give up a lot of their power and they don’t want to.
What happened next is that Pinochet ruled until 1990. He made the mistake of holding a referendum, believing he was popular… He was then pursued legally and and of course the Blair government was never going to let him be extradited to Spain because they were doing what the Americans wanted. Pinochet would have blown the gaff and put the spotlight on Nixon who by this time was dead but also on Kissinger who was still very much alive. There would have been teachable moments about the CIA and its behaviour.
Stafford Beer, well he died in 2002. Cybersyn never took off.
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..
During the early 1970s, the space shuttle was being developed by NASA in the United States. The first significant elaboration of the chlorine-ozone layer hypothesis was offered at a scientific gathering in Kyoto, Japan on 10,11 and 12 September 1973, when Richard Stolarski and Ralph Cicerone, both from the University of Michigan, presented the findings from their research.
(Rowlands,1995: 48 [Cicerone in 2001 was head of NAS, when Dubya Bush asked for review of IPCC]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that while the question of Ozone depletion caused by SSTs (supersonic transports) such as Concorde had already been a “hot” scientific and political issue it was going to be less of one with the shuttle because by definition they were not going to be many of them. But it was part of the general upsurge of awareness about global atmospheric consequences of human activity and Kyoto, well… 26 years later Kyoto would be by the first test of the climate treaty.
What I think we can learn from this stuff has a long history. I don’t particularly rate this blog post though so rough cicerone pops up elsewhere you could make something about that.
What happened next
The shuttle programme finally got underway officially in 1981 but two shuttles were lost which is about in line with what you’d expect given how is all put together and designed. Was it worth the Enormous cost to put some clowns in on the moon as it were is there really a good case for humans in space it’s not at all clear to me that it’s worth it.
Rowland and Molina were doing their thing –
By December [1973], Rowland and Molina had completed their calculations, and in June 1974 their paper was published in Nature. The results of their research were startling, but as Rowland recalled afterward, “There was no moment when I yelled ‘Eureka!’ I just came home one night and told my wife, ‘The work is going every well, but it looks like the end of the world.’”
(Oppenheimer & Boyle, 1990: 44)
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 10, 2008, Greenpeace who had occupied the Kingsnorth power station were acquitted – a jury found them not guilty.
It’s been a pretty unusual ten days but today has been truly extraordinary. At 3.20pm, the jury came back into court and announced a majority verdict of not guilty! All six defendants – Kevin, Emily, Tim, Will, Ben and Huw – were acquitted of criminal damage.
To recap on how important this verdict is: thedefendantscampaigners were accused of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to Kingsnorth smokestack from painting. The defence was that they had ‘lawful excuse’ – because they were acting to protect property around the world “in immediate need of protection” from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Greenpeace activists had been pushing against coal with so-called “CCS ready” status. Climate campers had camped out first at Drax power station in 2006 and then at Kingsnorth in 2008. Just before this acquittal more broadly the Brown government was trying to to get carbon capture and storage technology going partly in order to save the world.
What I think we can learn from this is that for successful social acceptance of new technology you’re probably going to need environmentalists on board. But it’s not clear to me that they will ever be particular fans of CCS.
What happened next
The first CCS competition kind of fizzled out in 2011 the second one was abruptly plug pulled in 2015 and then there was a massive work of re sanctifying CCS in 2016/17/18.
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..
Seventy six years ago, on this day, September 9, 1947, the communist paper the Daily Worker e takes a look at what is going on.
Daily Worker 9 Sept 1947 LONG BEFORE THE A-BOMB fell scientists talked and wrote about the possible use of nuclear energy. They envisioned steamboats crossing the Atlantic, powered by the atomic energy from a spoonful of water. They discussed ways of melting the polar ice-caps and changing world climate. They wrote of creating new lakes for irrigating and fructifying the deserts
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in the aftermath of World War II, which had been ended with a couple of nuclear bombs – the second of which was most definitely gratuitous (as was the final air raid on Tokyo) the dreams of power beyond imagining were real or looked like they could be realised. The daily worker communist newspaper reminds us that shaping the planet to meet human needs and once the Promethean dream seemed to be within reach.
What I think we can learn from this is that humans have dreamt of changing the planet advertently and with forethought but what we have ended up with instead is inadvertent weather and climate modification as per the warnings of Captain Orville in 1957-58.
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..
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was a campaign of nonviolent direct action and resistance had culminated in this.
What I think we can learn from this is that campaigns of non-violent direct action but do not always lead to a victory with changes in the law or the ways that the law is is enforced but direct action in and of itself only a tactical set of behaviours but may also have deeper moral or political implications and consequences. But there’s also the question of just getting s*** done
What happened next I don’t know. I should see if the lobster people won – in the long-term or were they shat upon?
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 7, 2005, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Greens call on the gov to rule out nuclear energy and release a report “Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the Howard government had asked a pro-nuclear scientist to do a review of nuclear power. This was after Howard and Bush had had one of their periodic meetings. The review made the same point that nuclear power was not going to be economic for Australia, and take too long to develop.
But it was also a useful “dead cat” strategy for Howard because he could wedge greens – he knew that some of them are pronuclear. Further, he knew it will take up time, energy and bandwidth and therefore distract from what he was (not) doing on climate.
But this is tricksy, and eventually the magician plays the same trick so many times that people spot how he does it and stop being impressed or even amused. And so it came to pass…
What I think we can learn from this is that nuclear is always a good “go to” if you want to avoid talking about what needs doing in the here and right now. And allow you to keep doing what you’re doing.
What happened next
Nuclear was not developed. It will not be developed in Australia because the population is not big enough and there aren’t enough big electricity consumers and anyway everyone has got wind and solar and the nuclear boat has sailed (and I don’t think the nuclear submarines will sail either. But who knows.)
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..
Sixteen years ago, on this day, September 6, 2007, some American congressmen hold a hearing about what might be done…
2007 “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing
As Congress turns its eye toward global warming legislation this fall, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will host Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, the CEO of American Electric Power, and other experts for a hearing exploring how to maintain coal as part of the energy mix for America and the world, while avoiding dangerous global warming. Chairman Markey and the rest of the Select Committee will learn about advanced coal technologies like carbon capture and storage, and how a framework for cutting emissions could affect the development and deployment of this technology and the future of coal-fired power plants.
WHAT: “The Future of Coal Under Carbon Cap and Trade”, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing
WHERE: 2172 Rayburn House Office Building and on the web at globalwarming.house.gov
WHEN: Sept 6, 2007, 9:30 AM
WHO:
Governor Dave Freudenthal, Wyoming
Michael Morris, Chairman and CEO, American Electric Power
Carl Bauer, Director, Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory
David Hawkins, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center
Robert Sussman, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP
Stuart Dalton, Director for the Generation Sector, Electric Power Research Institute
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the European Union had started an Emissions Trading Scheme. There was a regional scheme in the United States with if I recall rightly seven or eight north-eastern states and the idea and expectation was that whoever became President in 2008 there would be space for a national scheme potentially. And therefore these sorts of “what if, what shape” events were being held in what MSA users would call the policy stream.
What I think we can learn from this is that people anticipate the near future and want to be ready for it so they can get rich. And that’s what so much of carbon pricing has been about – not actually reducing emissions, because if you wanted to reduce emissions you would do different things and you would have to start doing them now rather than letting the so-called market which you’re busy creating decide.
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.
