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.”

Categories
Kyoto Protocol Russia

October 22, 2004 – Russian Duma votes for Kyoto ratification

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 22nd, 2004, 

Russian Duma votes in favour of ratification of Kyoto (Scorcher, page 95)

Just hot air, in every sense…

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 that the original climate treaty, which became the UNFCCC, didn’t have targets and timetables for rich countries to reduce their emissions. This was not forgetfulness, this was the intransigence of the USA, whose President, George H.W. Bush, threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if the French didn’t take out the targets and timetables. The French did, and then it became a question of how to get some emissions reductions commitment into play. The “answer” was the Kyoto Protocol” – entirely inadequate from a scientific viewpoint, but “at least it’s a start” if you need to believe because you are a breeder, or part of your job description is to believe. But although a deal was created at Kyoto, in 2001 the Americans pulled out followed by one of their satellite states, Australia, the following year.

The specific context was that the Russians wanted in to the World Trade Organisation (this was in the days of cuddly Putin), and the tacit quid pro quo was they’d sign up to Kyoto (which wouldn’t affect them because their emissions had plummeted after the collapse of the Soviet Union) and everyone would be happy.

What I think we can learn from this – you gotta know the history, and you gotta understand that climate policy is a bauble compared to all the other stuff (you can make an argument that “climate policy” doesn’t actually exist, btw).

What happened next – Kyoto became international law early the next year because of Russia saying yes. Australia and the US set up an attempted spoiler/distraction outfit, but nobody took it seriously. There was to-ing and fro-ing- at the COPs, but eventually, in 2007 there was the “Road to Copenhagen” – where a successor to Kyoto would be agreed. Oh 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.

Also on this day: 

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes

October 21, 1991 – “Environment agencies start to flex their muscles”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 21st, 1991,

An international plan was unveiled yesterday to “harness the total resources of humanity” to improve the global environment by measures which include massive reductions in energy consumption and the use of natural resources in industrialised countries.

The proposals, put forward by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world conservation union (IUCN) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), envisage the establishment of a new world organisation – probably based on the United Nations – to co-ordinate environmental protection and encourage sustainable development which does not deplete natural resources.

The reports entitled “Caring for the Earth”, suggest that the UN general assembly could coordinate the system through its committees and produce annual reports on the state of the world environment.

Launching the report in London, the Duke of Edinburgh, president of the WWF, warned that unless population growth was halted soon world resources would no longer be able to support humanity’s needs and economies would face collapse. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/cfe-003.pdf

Unknown Author, 1991. Environment Agencies Start To Flex Their Muscles. Financial Times October 22 p.4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. 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. I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that many of these organisations had been established in the 1950s or 1960s, when the major issues were habitat loss. Over time the ones that could roll with the punches, adopt new language etc., were able to survive while the small, unlucky or “stuck” with a particular perspective or image stayed small or died. By 1991 the second great eco-awakening was already three years old, and participant fatigue was beginning to set in.

The specific context was that the Rio Earth Summit was just 8 months away, and everyone was hoping that this time they’d all get it right and Save the World. 

What I think we can learn from this – green groups can have hopes, but then, well, there’s always reality…

What happened next. Reader, nobody Saved the World. The UNFCCC was a farce, and the emissions are 60+ per cent higher than they were in 1990.

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 21, 1989 – Langkawi Declaration on environmental sustainability… 

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Energy United States of America

October 20, 1970 – Memo about energy research required because power sector too fragmented

Fifty five years ago, on this day, October 20th, 1970, 

Dr Edward David memo to Nixon about federal government funding for energy research being necessary because power industry too fragmented. 

See Speth Ch 1 of They Knew

This isn’t the memo (I think), but gives the same flavour.

“On the other hand, in some cases projects are so large and the industry involved so fragmented that they are really unable to come to grips with big, expensive efforts where the risks are high and the payoff far in the future. Furthermore, many industries don’t have the R&D tradition. The tradition of R&D and the peculiar culture that surrounds it are necessary for its existence and its effectiveness. Some industries have not cultivated and have never had this tradition. It’s difficult and, indeed, almost impossible for them to begin R&D on a large scale successfully and without great waste of resources. In the next few years the nation is going to be faced with many problems concerning government action in certain R&D fields. The President decides whether a development is potentially so important that if industry doesn’t pick it up, then the Government must. He has made a number of those judgments, particularly in the environmental area. And we are doing a great deal of environmental research, for example, the unconventional automobile propulsion work at the National Air Pollution Control Administration. The question arises: Why should the Government be developing unconventional automobile engines why not the industry itself? Well, there is a delicate judgment there as to whether the Government ought to be doing such work. In this instance, we had judgments from many people both in and out of the industry that if the Government augmented the work, it would go forward a great deal more rapidly. I don’t see us taking over automotive R&D, however.”

Source – ED053968.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. 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 there were (as always) fierce debates going on about the “energy mix” (coal, nuclear, oil etc etc) for the US. Each had its proponents and opponents, with their varying tactics. But doing any sort of co-ordination/planning or even research is problematic in fragmented/privately owned situations.

The specific context was Nixon’s government was aware of climate change (Moynihan memo and response) and had been warned about it in the August 1970 CEQ report. But it was not high on the agenda.

What I think we can learn from this – that fragmented is not good, but centralised isn’t perfect either. Look at the UK, which at this time had the Central Electricity Generating Board, an “opaque behemoth.” 

Whatever system you have, you need an active/engaged/irrepressible civil society, of which social movements are a subset. Absent that, some brand of Bolshevik/Hayekian is going to pick your pocket and loot your future.

What happened next – the Bolsheviks and Hayekians continued to pick pockets and loot futures. And the emissions kept climbing, regardless of various “eco-awakenings.”

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 20, 1977 – Australian petition on solar energy and carbon dioxide build-up…

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

October 20, 1997 – Greenpeace tries to give John Howard solar panels

October 20, 2001 – Greenpeace nails Howard government over Kyoto and general climate assholery – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

October 19, 1993 – Clinton handwringing

Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 19th, 1993, 

“We simply must halt global warming. It is a threat to our health, to our ecology and to our economy. The problem frankly affects every sector of the economy.” Clinton, William J. 1993. Remarks at the White House Conference on Climate Change, October 19

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 357ppm. 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 US had gutted the UNFCCC (insisting that targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations be removed or else) and then ratified it quite swiftly in December 1992. Al Gore, Clinton’s veep had published “Earth in the Balance” the previous year. Ah, such sweet and innocent times.

The specific context was that Clinton had already by this time had his ass handed to him over the BTU tax, so all this was compensatory bollocks.

What I think we can learn from this is that a lot of what comes out of politicians mouths is just PR blandishments designed to distract you while your pocket is picked and your future is looted. 

What happened next – Clinton’s emissions got him into trouble a few years later (i.e. he abused his position of power, for the umpteenth time). Nothing meaningful was done about US emissions. And the future continued to be looted, and the present started to catch up with the future, until we entered the Fafocene.

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 19, 2002 – Doctors for the Environment Australia, becomes a thing.

October 19, 2010 – Greenpeace trolls ANZ Bank 

October 19, 2011 – First UK CCS competition fizzles out

Categories
Europe

October 19, 1972 – EC handwringing about the environment

Fifty three years ago, on this day, October 19th, 1972,

The Heads of State or Government of the Member States met in Paris on October 19-20, 1972. They declared inter alia that “economic expansion is not an end in itself.” Economic expansion, they noted, “should result in an improvement in the quality of life as well as in standards of living.” Stressing the importance of a Community environmental policy, they called upon the Community institutions “to establish before 31 July 1973, a programme of action accompanied by a precise timetable.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. 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 European Conservation Year had taken place in 1970, and “the environment” had been flavour of the month for a while now. The UN conference on the Human Environment had taken place in Stockholm in June and given us… er… checks notes… the United Nations Environment Program.

The specific context was – the European Community was trying to carve out some useful positions, amidst a possible thaw in the “Cold War” (detente and all that).

What I think we can learn from this – the bland technocrats have been bland technocratting (1) for a long time. The emissions don’t seem to have plateaued very much.

What happened next – lots more warm words and bland technocratting.

(NB I am not sure Maoist adventurism and Great Leaps Forward are preferable, tbh). “There’s gotta be another way” …

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 19, 2002 – Doctors for the Environment Australia, becomes a thing.

October 19, 2010 – Greenpeace trolls ANZ Bank 

October 19, 2011 – First UK CCS competition fizzles out

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial United States of America

October 18, 1991 – American denialist in Australia….

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 18th, 1991,

Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar

Not his first rodeo…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 carbon dioxide build-up had broken through as an issue in 1988. By 1989 the George C Marshall Institute (set up to shill for Reagan’s Star Wars bullshit) had entered the fray and was enabling denialist efforts, alongside the Global Climate Coalition etc. Australia was one market for its shite.

Singer – Singer had been a semi-respected scientist and bureaucrat from the 1950s onward. But at some point he had jumped the shark. Here, he was fresh from warping the words of a dying Roger Revelle, who had known that many people did not think Singer was much of a scientist…

The specific context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was coming to an end and the moment of maximum danger – where the government might actually take on some of its recommendations – was about now. If you were going to bring out some idiot not very good scientist (as per Roger Revelle) now would be a good time. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this – evil people aren’t necessarily stupid or incompetent. (And conversely, the “good” guys aren’t all smart and competent.)

What happened next – The ESD got thrown in the bin by Paul Keating, who toppled Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke a couple of months later. The Tasman Institute kept up with the tours, economic modelling 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.

Also on this day: 

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 18, 1984 – Nature reviews four climate change books

On this day forty one years ago, American scientist John Perry reviewed four books about climate change for Nature.

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

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 by the early 1980s the evidence was basically in, as far as the scientists were concerned.

Carbon dioxide trapped heat.

Carbon dioxide was building up in the atmosphere.

More heat would be trapped.

You can make it more complex if you like…

The specific context was that the climate issue wasn’t going away, just because Reagan and Thatcher were ignoring it…

What I think we can learn from this – we knew plenty.

What happened next – 

See Lord Ashby in House of Lords a few days later (am blogging it)

Also on this day

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.