Categories
Australia Business Responses Carbon Capture and Storage

October 30, 2009 – QRC bullshit about CCS – “first commercial scale CCS electricity generator by about 2015”

Sixteen years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2009 QRC hype report on Carbon Capture and Storage

“Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche told brisbanetimes.com.au he believed government and industry support would ensure the technology was put in place much sooner.

“I’m confident we will have our first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage electricity generator by about 2014 or 2015,” he said in a report that was published yesterday.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 the coal industry had decided that CCS was a card to play while increasing exports. As long as the taxpayer picked up the tab for research and development, of course. 

The specific context was that 2009 was peak CCS hype around the world. 

What I think we can learn from this – gangs of rich people (“Resource Coucils”) are going to say whatever is convenient for other people to believe. There are plenty of tame stenographers willing to report it dutifully and accurately. 

What happened next – CCS collapsed in a heap, of course.

Meanwhile, getting renewables projects going in Queensland just got much harder…

Queensland’s latest wind farm kill sends shockwaves through renewables industry | RenewEconomy

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: 

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publlshed.

Categories
United States of America

October 29, 2004 – the end is near says Kurt Vonnegut.

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2004, the inimitable Kurt Vonnegut is, well Kurt Vonnegut

The End is Near – In These Times

What was the beginning of this end? Some might say Adam and Eve and the apple of knowledge. I say it was Prometheus, a Titan, a son of gods, who in Greek myth stole fire from his parents and gave it to human beings. The gods were so mad they chained him naked to a rock with his back exposed, and had eagles eat his liver.

And it is now plain that the gods were right to do that. Our close cousins the gorillas and orangutans and chimps and gibbons have gotten along just fine all this time while eating raw vegetable matter, whereas we not only prepare hot meals, but have now all but destroyed this once salubrious planet as a life-support system in fewer than 200 years, mainly by making thermodynamic whoopee with fossil fuels.

The Englishman Michael Faraday built the first dynamo, capable of turning mechanical energy into electricity, only 173 years ago. The first oil well in the United States, now a dry hole, was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania, by Edwin L. Drake only 145 years ago. The German Karl Benz built the first automobile powered by an internal combustion engine only 119 years ago. 

The American Wright brothers, of course, built and flew the first airplane only 101 years ago. It was powered by gasoline. You want to talk about irresistible whoopee?

A booby trap.

Fossil fuels, so easily set alight! 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 Vonnegut had been an American POW in Dresden when it got the absolute living shit bombed out of it very near the end of the war (see Slaughterhouse Five).

He also wrote Cat’s Cradle, about Ice-9, which is an absolute MUST READ. All about an ecological catastrophe set off by man’s technological hubris

The specific context was it was 2004 – the Bush Administration remained resolute in its opposition ot all action that might slow the accelerating fucked-ness of the planet.

What I think we can learn from this. Vonnegut is worth your time.

What happened next Vonnegut died in 2007. Much missed.

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: 

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to help save planet. Does it? Of course it doesn’t.

Categories
United Kingdom

 October 29, 1984 – Lord Ashby speaks out

Forty one years ago, on this day, October 29th, 1984, the House of Lords got schooled.

Lord Ashby – There are the dangers of the long-term effects of gases causing a change in the cloak of ozone in the upper atmosphere; and then there is the most ominous teaser in the pack, which is the possible effects on climate of something we know for certain is going on, and that is the accumulation of carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and oil. Only last week, in the scientific journal Nature, four books were reviewed by an authority on that subject. Every one of the writers of those four books takes a serious view of the long-term dangers that may—scientists will never go beyond using the word “may” in public—come from the accumulation of carbon dioxide. The commission warns, I think very rightly, that the social and economic consequences of climatic change which might be caused by this in the next century “could be very great indeed”. Not much perhaps can be done; but something could be done now. The Government’s disregard for this long-range problem is perhaps illustrated by the way the Commission on Energy and Environment has been put into abeyance at a time when the issue finally ought to be challenged with this very important possible future time bomb. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1984-10-29/debates/e5fae6df-ecfd-4e0d-a8a6-ce67bf780fe3/LordsChamber

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 British scientists and civil servants had been working on carbon dioxide build-up and what to do about it in the second half of the 1970s. Then Thatcher showed she really was not at all interested and that, combined with the lukewarm First World Climate Conference, put everything on the backburner. But Eric Ashby, for it is he, who had known about the problem since he was the first chair of the Royal Commission on Environment Pollution – The RCEP’s first report, in 1971, had a reasonable section on CO2 build-up

The specific context was four books had been published and were reviewed:

Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and Climatic Change: A Review of the Scientific Problems. By P.S. Liss and A.J. Crane. Geo Books, Regency House, 34 Duke Street, Norwich NR3 3AP, UK: 1983. Pp.127. Hbk £8.50, $17;pbk £3.95, $7.80.

Carbon Dioxide — Emissions and Effects (Report No. ICTIS/TR18). By Irene M. Smith. IEA Coal Research, 14–15 Lower Grosvenor Place, London SW1W 0EX: 1982. Pp.132. £10 (IEA countries), £20 (elsewhere).

Climate and Energy Systems: A Review of their Interactions By Jill Jäger. Wiley: 1983. Pp.231. £19.95, $39.95.

Our Threatened Climate: Ways of Averting the CO2 Problem through Rational Energy Use By Wilfrid Bach. Reidel: 1983. Pp.368. $29, Dfl. 95, £24.25.

Perry, J. Much ado about CO2. Nature 311, 681–682 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1038/311681a0

Ashby was using that as a hook to talk about the problem.

What I think we can learn from this – it was there. The scientific elite knew about it. But what could they do, with a planet-trasher in charge?

What happened next – the problem finally became an issue in the middle 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.

References

Obituary: Lord Ashby | The Independent | The Independent

Also on this day: 

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to h

Categories
International processes Soviet Union United States of America

October 28, 1968 – Los Angeles Times report on the possibility of an environment conference

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, October 28th, 1968

“Both the United States and the Soviet Union have privately expressed a strong interest in the project.

Foell, E. 1968. Sweden to Ask U.N. for World Pollution Talks: Parley in 1972 Urged . Los Angeles Times; October 28, pg. 28.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 Sweden had had its “environmental turn” in late 1967, and some Swedish diplomats had begun to push for the UN to hold a conference on the environment.

The specific context was that after lots of fancy footwork, and ultimate buy-in from the US and USSR (though they would later boycott it), the conference was about to get the go ahead.

What I think we can learn from this – Sweden punched above its weight for a while there.

What happened next – the conference took place in June 1972. Very few world leaders attended and the only really substantive thing to come out of it, afaik, was the creation of the United Nations Environment Program. UNEP and WMO co-sponsored, along with ICSU, various scientific meetings about the atmosphere and pollution, including the pivotal one in Villach, Austria in October 1985.

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: 

October 28, 1956 – New York Times reports “Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air” 

Categories
United Kingdom

October 27, 1988 – the Guardian’s advertising dept is revolting

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 27th, 1988, the limits are pushed…

This recalls an infamous case from 1988 involving the Guardian, considered Britain’s most liberal newspaper. An article by Guardian journalist James Erlichman covered a Greenpeace campaign to name and shame Ford motor company – then by far the country’s biggest advertiser – because it lagged behind other car manufacturers in adapting engines to take unleaded petrol. A Greenpeace poster showed exhaust fumes in the shape of a skull and crossbones with the slogan: ‘Ford Gives You More.’

Greenpeace tried to publish the poster as an advertisement in The Times, the Guardian and the Independent – all refused. The conclusion to Erlichman’s piece contained one of the great bombshells in the history of British journalism:

“Greenpeace booked 20 hoardings for its poster campaign. But then the advertising agency was informed that most of the sites – those owned by Mills & Allen – had been withdrawn.

Carl Johnson, who is handling the account, said: ‘We were told that the posters were offensive, but I am sure someone was afraid of losing a lot of Ford advertising.’

Mr Johnson attempted to book the ‘skull and crossbones’ advertisement with The Times, the Guardian and the Independent. ‘I have no doubt that they all feared losing Ford’s advertising if they accepted ours,’ he said.” (Erlichman, ‘Threat of boycotts “turns firms green”,’ The Guardian, October 27, 1988) https://www.medialens.org/2009/the-guardian-climate-and-advertising-an-open-email-to-george-monbiot/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 newspapers have been reliant on advertising for a very long time. Efforts to break free of that have on the whole not worked so well, at a mass level.

The specific context was that everyone was het up about global warming. It was a good story. There was nothing wrong with it journalistically. Economically though….

What I think we can learn from this – that advertising is one of the five filters in the Herman and Chomsky Propaganda Model. Which should be taught in schools, but won’t ever be.

What happened next – the Guardian mostly learned its lesson, eh?

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: 

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions –

Categories
Australia New Zealand Science

October 26, 1994 – “Global warming is a global warning”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 26th, 1994,

Scientists, politicians and economists recently gathered in New Zealand for the Greenhouse 94 conference from October 10 to 14. Discussions at the conference confirmed that the heat is on: sea levels are rising, climate patterns are shifting, and the atmosphere is heating up. ZANNY BEGG reports on the implications of global warming.

Ben Elton, in his best-selling novel Stark, was able to describe the earth as a stinking trash can of multinational companies — with an ozone layer in tatters, sea temperatures rising and pollution transforming the air into a toxic soup — and keep it funny. But when straight-faced scientists begin to talk about the threat global warming poses to the planet there isn’t much to laugh about.

Two thousand five hundred scientists working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement on September 14 that told the world what we didn’t want to know: carbon dioxide levels are on the rise and the world’s climate is at a serious risk from human activity. This was confirmed by discussions at the Greenhouse 94 conference, convened by CSIRO, which concluded that sea levels and temperatures in the Oceania region have been rising steadily since the beginning of the century.

Elwin Jackson attended the Greenhouse 94 conference for Greenpeace. His prediction for the future, if no reduction of greenhouse gases occurs, is as stark as Ben Elton’s. “In the year 2040”, he explained to Green Left Weekly, “we could see famine stalking through South-East Asia. We could see more droughts, increased flooding, rapidly changing weather conditions and more pests. The conditions we see in many parts of Africa could come to this part of the world. The human cost of this would be horrific.

Anon, 1994. Greenhouse alert: global warming is a global warning. Green Left Weekly October 26, 1994

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-alert-global-warming-global-warning

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 first “Greenhouse” conference, in 1987, had been crucial – an opportunity for scientists working in different domains to compare notes. For a few years the scientists were being sorta listened to (which is distinct from saying they had a lot of influence).

The specific context was by 1994 climate had disappeared from the front pages and into the boring bits where policies are combatted and not really explained. Yawnsville. Still, the grinding work of science goes on…

What I think we can learn from this – issue attention cycles are a thing. More people should know about them

What happened next – scientists kept sciencing. Emissions kept climbing.

See interview with the cartoonist 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.

Also on this day: 

October 26, 1975 – “The Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins… 

Categories
Norway Predatory delay Propaganda

New words! “Petroganda” and “oilsplaining”

I just listened to a Drilled podcast – The Black Thread Pt 2: Petroganda, and you should to.

It’s a nice investigation of the way Statoil (since rebranded as Equinor) has a virtual death grip on Norwegian culture and “common sense.” Nobody says “Gramsci” or “hegemony”, but maybe they should. Nice interview with the Statoil Veep of Communications too.

Here’s a definition

The term “petroganda” was coined by journalist and Drilled founder Amy Westervelt to describe the fossil fuel industry’s approach to the information ecosystem, an approach that goes far beyond simply “disinformation,” which Westervelt describes as just the most visible symptom of this problem. In this context “petroganda” is defined as: The intentional warping of information ecosystems by corporate interests, such that everything from the basic building blocks of information—university research, surveys, white papers—to public-facing campaigns crafted by PR and advertising experts are driven by a profit or power motive as opposed to the desire to understand and communicate.

“Petroganda” is perhaps a little clumsy, and is hardly new (but then, they don’t claim it is). It’s simply the way that the oil companies (and in Australia it was/is the coal companies) go for full spectrum dominance – making sure they are in people’s minds and hearts from a very young age. The usual stuff – museums, sponsoring sports and cultural stuff, games for the kiddies etc etc. And it creates what one interviewee calls “oilsplaining” – whenever she raises Statoil’s carbon emissions she gets all the oily talking points, from people who don’t think they’ve been indoctrinated at all…

I quite like Emily Atkin’s

of oilsplaining, drawing on (of course) Rebecca Solnit’s “mansplaining.”

Oilsplaining,” our word for when some random dude who doesn’t fully understand climate change explains the benefits of fossil fuels to you .

See also

The Fossil Fuel Industry Hasn’t Come Up With a New Story in 100 Years, Why Do Climate Folks Find It So Hard to Keep Up?

2023 academic article “The language of late fossil capital.”

And my piece about Shell and its corporate propaganda, from late 2015. On existentialism, guilt, Godard and … Shell’s corporate framing strategy

A Statoil guy talking about climate change in 1980.

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage

October 25, 2021 – IRENA fanbois CCS

Four years ago, on this day, October 25th, 2021,

On October 25, 2021 the International Renewable Energy Agency published a technical paper on the synergies between CCS and renewables in “reaching zero”. This is an astonishing and categorical failure by IRENA if indeed they ever held any proper ambition for wide scale implementation of renewables. The widely echoed calls for 100% renewables are fundamentally threatened by any CCS applied to fossil fuels or biomass. We should be very concerned at this time to see IRENA defy the fundamentals of its platform.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 CCS as a “solution” to climate change has been around since the 1970s. There have been various flurries of interest and then physics and economics intervenes – somebody should do a compare and contrast of CCS and hydrogen hypes (they’re coupled at present).

The specific context was that CCS wants all the friends it can get. What IRENA gets out of it, not so clear.

What I think we can learn from this is that technounicorns will get love from all sorts of places. 

What happened next – the CCS bandwagon has rolled on. When the wheels will fall off is anyone’s guess…

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.

References and further reading

Climate Warriors and Flagships from Hell – OffGuardian

Also on this day: 

October 25, 1982 – Exxon and “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium 

October 25, 2000 – local authorities in England make #climate promises. Well, that went well… #NottinghamDeclaration

Categories
Sweden

October 24, 1967 – Acid Rain

Fifty eight years ago, on this day, October 24th, 1967,

“The early theory of acid rain came from a Swedish scientist, Svante Oden, who published it first not in a scientific journal, but in a newspaper, the October 24, 1967, issue of Dagens Nyheter”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 322ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere would screw with buildings and lungs was a long established fact, dating back centuries – by the time of the Industrial Revolution it got so bad in some English cities that – gasp- the British State created an Alkali Inspectorate.

The specific context was Sweden was noticing changes to the acidity of their lakes, and biological impacts on trees, fish etc. And they wondered if the problem might be coming from perfidious Albion…

What I think we can learn from this is that there were plenty of cognate issues to do with atmospheric pollution alongside climate – ozone, nuclear war etc.

What happened next the British politicians ignored, denied etc. etc. that it was their fault. Of course they did. Read more about it 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.

Also on this day: 

October 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

Categories
Activism Australia

October 23, 2006 – Climate Adverts “put heat on government”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, October 23rd, 2006,

Climate ads put heat on govt for action

A group of academics have taken out ads in major newspapers urging the government to press for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

A group of academics and professionals concerned about climate change has taken out ads in major newspapers urging the Australian government to press for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The advertising, funded by the Climate Institute, comes as the government prepares to announce new measures to tackle man-made climate change.

The ads include messages such as “Gas Emissions From Our Politicians Are Now At A Critical Level” and “It’s Time The Government Broke The Drought”.

“An effective and credible response requires Australia’s national greenhouse gas emissions go down, not up,” the institute’s chief executive Corin Millais said in a statement.

“The Australian government’s current policy has already increased emissions by 10 per cent over the last decade and is set to increase them by a further 17 per cent by 2020.”

The institute, chaired by former NSW premier Bob Carr, has released a five-point plan to reduce emissions, which it says is Australia’s greatest challenge.

“This commonsense national five-point plan shows that there is a way forward for Australia to address climate change and help stop the most severe impacts,” Mr Millais said.

“Climate change can be tackled with a five-point plan that legislates to make emissions go down, not up, sets a carbon price, implements clean energy technologies, delivers on energy savings and places Australia in a leading role to cut emissions worldwide.

“Measures that turn around emissions will also promote opportunities for Australia to become a part of the booming global clean energy market – worth $74 billion last year.

“There are a wide range of solutions like wind, solar and bio-fuels that could be put into place right now.”

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions which Australia has refused to sign, Australia was given a target of a 108 per cent increase on 1990 emission levels.

The government has repeatedly said it is on track to meet that target.

The Climate Institute of Australia has taken out national newspaper advertisements calling on the Federal Government to seriously address global warming.

The advertisements are published in 13 newspapers in every state and territory, with a total readership of more than 6.5 million Australians.

They call on the Federal Government to ensure greenhouse emissions go down, not up.

The institute’s chief executive, Corin Millias, says the Federal Government’s existing policies are not working, and emissions have increased by 10 per cent over the last decade.

“We’ve got a major challenge in front of us and we will never solve the problem if our emissions profile keeps rising,” he said.

The advertisements follow a TV campaign that was broadcast in rural Australia.

The Federal Government says it is on track to meet its target by 2010.

23 October 2006 AAP Bulletins CANBERRA

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 after years in the “meh, who cares, really?” zone, climate change had become, a month previously, the hot issue (bunch of different reasons). The Climate Institute, the brainchild of Clive Hamilton (who had set up the Australia Institute in the mid-1990s).

The specific context was that there was enormous pressure on John Howard, Prime Minister for ten years at this point, and an extremely effective stopper of climate action, to do a u-turn. This was part of that.

What I think we can learn from this – adverts and open letters have a certain utility – they can be a “shot across the bows” of a minister or government, reminding them that there are costs for the action (or inaction) they are currently undertaking.

What happened next – Prime Minister Howard did a u-turn in December, announcing an emissions trading taskforce (“The Shergold Report”). This did not help him burnish his image, and at the same time, Kevin Rudd toppled Kim Beasely to become leader of the opposition. Rudd had two sticks with which he planned to beat Howard – the Iraq War and climate change…

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: 

October 23, 1963 – JKF warns of actions “which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale.”