Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

August 15, 2000 – “Plan to bury Greenhouse Gas”

Twenty six years ago, on this day, August 15th, 2000,

Emissions soar 17 per cent despite $1b spent on crisis

AUSTRALIAN scientists are investigating a scheme to bury carbon dioxide underground as a way of reducing our burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions.

A research team, which is in the middle of a four-year project, claims it can find a cost-effective way of sealing carbon dioxide in the earth, safely and permanently, by putting it back where it came from.

They are looking at sedimentary basins across Australia – deep saline areas, coal seams which cannot be mined and depleted oil and gas reservoirs – for spaces big enough to hold big volumes of carbon dioxide.

The continuing research will be presented at an international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies in Cairns today, after new figures which warned of the effects of global warming.

Rose, R. 2000. Plan To Bury Greenhouse Gas. The West Australian, 15 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 idea of capturing and storing carbon dioxide because of climate change went back to 1975 when Italian physicist Cesar Marchetti did some back of envelope calculations as part of an International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis workshop. This had been built on, looked at, and in the late 90s examined a bit more deeply and disregarded because it was palpable nonsense,

The specific context was that with the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 it was clear that actual emissions reductions for rich nations might be unavoidable, and therefore carbon capture and storage no longer looked too expensive and too ridiculous to consider. There had been a series of international workshops on greenhouse gas technologies from the early 90s onwards, and here we see another such meeting. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a technology can be laughed at, but come back later, because it now meets either an ecological, economic, or political need.

What happened next Carbon capture and storage really started to take off by the mid 2000s as a political solution to an ecological and social problem. There was a spike in interest in the second half of the 2000s especially in the lead up to the Copenhagen climate summit. It then went away again, and it has now come back, but seems to be as far as I can tell, and I really can’t be bothered to look closely because it is way later than anyone things – on life support.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 15, 1952 – flash flood – caused by Weather Modification experiment? 

August 15, 1977 – “Theoretical climate effects of doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content

August 15, 1989 – Queenslander mayor says the greenhouse effect is like“a bird urinating in the Tweed River while in flight”

August 15, 2010 – a walk against warming fails to catch fire. #RepertoireRot

August 15, 2010 – Russia halts grain exports because of droughts and heatwaves

Categories
Andy Burnham United Kingdom

Burnham’s crisis – the media, the why (via Star Trek) and what he might do next…

The King of the North became Prime Minister on July 20, over three weeks ago, on July 20. His silence on climate change, in the midst of rolling heatwaves, drought and fears about food supplies, is beginning to gain attention.

We learn from a good  piece by journalist Chloe Farand that it’s not, generally, a priority for them.  

This morning there ia a terrible Guardian “analysis” that doesn’t even answer the question the headline – ‘why is Burnham so reluctant to talk about the climate crisis’ – puts. It is mere description and not worth your time, and I have deliberately not linked to it.

Anyway, Burnham’s silence is now trending on Bsky.

This is presumably because Greens leader Zack Polanski is continuing to punch the bruise and Guardian columnist George Monbiot is at work.

If @andyburnham.bsky.social were Prime Minister during the Blitz:

“There is an urgent problem of bombs falling on London. They appear to be coming out of the sky. We convened a COBRA meeting to discuss it. The root causes of this problem are not something I am prepared to discuss.”

#ClimateEmergency 

Why the silence?

So let’s dig deeper on this question of why Burnham has been silent. In my original piece I posited either a) keeping powder dry ahead of Major Announcement at Labour Party conference or b) having to be silent because of ongoing battles within the party (administration, MPs – not the members though, fuck the members) about what stance to take.

There are (as I said) other possibilities.

One, Burnham and his advisors just don’t think “green issues” are a vote winner – those lost to the Greens aren’t coming back and chasing them will lose the “red wall” voters who switched to Reform.  (To be clear, I think this is an absurd misreading of the electorate, as several people with a better grasp on the electorate have pointed out repeatedly, but you can see where it is coming from).  For one thing, only very rarely have climate issues been particularly prominent (1988-1991, 2006 to 2009 and 2019).  Most voters don’t really care, or at least that’s how Westminster sees it.  But there’s always the Lucretian problem, isn’t there?

I know I already said this, and used this screengrab from an unpublished letter to the Financial Times

, but it bears repeating – Burnham as mayor gave no REAL evidence that he gives a shit. He’s there for the photo ops, for the tame audiences he knows he can tickle, but I saw no evidence that he was willing to expend significant political capital on actually making either mitigation (cutting emissions) or adaptation (like we can!) happen.  It’s kayfabe, ‘kay?

Two – the fiscal crisis of the party. (aka Follow the money)

As “Cobie Cipher Triangulation Agency”  wrote on Bsky.

We know why Burnham won’t talk about it: Labour are in a dire financial state as members quit for actual left-wing and centrist parties and donors flee to the right, so they can’t be picky when it comes to donations. And they are putting party first, as they have since Starmer won the leadership. 

More broadly than Burnham’s personal history and following the money “Follow the ideology.”

Here I like to use an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where they’ve captured a Borg and plan to plant an ‘impossible’ object in its visual cortex. 

PICARD

How can a geometric form disable a computer system?

DATA

The shape is a paradox. It cannot exist in real space or time.

GEORDI

When Hugh’s imaging apparatus imprints it on his bio-chips, he’ll try to analyze it.

DATA

He will be unsuccessful, and will store the shape in his memory banks. It will be shunted to a subroutine for further analysis.

GEORDI

When the Borg download his memory, they’ll incorporate it into their network. Then they’ll try to analyze it.

DATA

It is designed so that each approach they take will spawn an anomalous solution. The anomalies are designed to interact with each other, linking together to form an endless and unsolvable puzzle.

PICARD

Quite original. How long before total systems failure?

GEORDI

Not until the shape has gone through several hundred computational cycles.

For me, climate change is the ultimate geometric form. Other people have called it a wicked problem, or a superwicked problem, or part of the polycrisis. For me, the Borg thing will do.

But especially for the shiny faced technocrats with their SPAD-dy CVs, and their PPEs from Oxford or Cambridge, the idea of a problem that doesn’t have a clever presentational/policy fix is basically unseeable and “therefore” (sic) ignorable.

What needs to happen?
Burnham needs to be shamed into showing his true colours.  For my money, this idea, which I put on Bluesky yesterday, would be worth pursuing.

Any coders, ppl handy with animations/graphics: can we not have a “Burnit all, Burnham” clock?

It would have days/hours/minutes since Burnham last said ANYthing about climate change/carbon dioxide build-up and – say – amnt of CO2 added to atmosphere, acres of land burnt in UK, lives lost to heat 

Burnham became PM on 20 July, at (let’s say, 3pm). That’s 22 days & 18 hrs = 1,965,600 seconds.  Given there’s 12 Hiroshima bombs of heat added per second (!) that’s 23,587,200 atom bombs.

But acres of land lost would be better, albeit somewhat trickier. I don’t have the skills. 

What is Burnham going to do?

Well, presumably his minions and munchkins are out there briefing the Westminster lobby hacks who aren’t on holiday about how he Does Care, he Does Get It etc. There will be a few more hit pieces against Polanski and the Greens. Farage will get (even more) deserved jibes about his stance. Badenoch too (though Burnham’s mob should be careful – the “we’re not the Tories” line only worked briefly for Starmer.

Beyond that, there are broadly three options

  1. Do nothing and just wait for the Bluesky crowd to rant themselves hoarse. Risky, but it may be perceived as the least risky option.  Only act if the Daily Mail starts editorialising that he should say something.
  2. A joint press conference with Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband and Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Sec of State for Energy and Net Zero, with a nice round number announceable (old money repackaged) and perhaps some mini-conference with UK and European “stakeholders” pencilled in for mid-September, with unions, NHS and – obvs – big business. And the French.

This might provide enough of a sandpit for wonks to play in, but does look anemic.  But my guess is it will be something like this.  It will not persuade those who have made up their minds, but it will buy him some time. 

  1. Some sort of Prime Ministerial address to the nation, speech with Andy’s mix of seriousness and bonhomie, with an extra sprinkling of gravitas.  I think this is unlikely in the short-term.

In the meantime, I think we should all be learning how to look after ourselves and each other as best we can. You can’t really stockpile water, but you can have food, medical supplies etc etc. It’s gonna get quite grim, I fear.

Categories
Australia

August 14, 1912 – That wretched news clipping that keeps doing the rounds was first published

UPDATE – Article was originally published July 17, 1912 – and then reprinted almost a month later in a New Zealand newspaper. That reprint here. Thanks to Sue Nethercott for pointing out my error.

One hundred and fourteen years ago, on this day, August 14th, 1912, this was published

https://theconversation.com/for-110-years-climate-change-has-been-in-the-news-are-we-finally-ready-to-listen-188646

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 300ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 it had been understood and accepted for decades that carbonic acid (carbon dioxide) trapped heat (see Eunice Foote and John Tyndall). In the 1890s Svante Arrhenius had spent a year calculating what would happen if the amount of carbon dioxide in the air doubled. The world would get significantly warmer, he showed, but he thought this was a good thing (less severe Swedish winters) and would take thousands of years.

The specific context was that the American magazine Popular Mechanics had done an article on whether the climate was changing and what the various theories were. This had then been excerpted/syndicated all over the show.

What I think we can learn from this is that people misunderstand how well accepted or known the carbon dioxide build-up theory was, and post it online as if “they” “knew.” “They” really didn’t. The absolute earliest date you can say “politicians etc really ought to have paid close attention” is 1953, and really, to be fair, the late 1950s…  

What happened next  People keep posting this damn thing as a conversation-ending-cliche on social media and I wish they would stop but they don’t and won’t.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 14, 1971 – Stanford Prison Study begins…

August 14, 1989 – South Australia creates “interdepartmental committee on #climate change”…

August 14, 2000 – Carbon Capture Technology will save us. Oh yes.

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

August 14, 2007 – CCS report in Australia “between a rock and a hard place”

August 14, 2021 – It’s raining (again) oh no our world’s at an end…

Categories
Ireland

August 13, 1986 – Soggy summers, withering winters says Irish newspaper

Forty years ago, on this day, August 13th, 1986, a newspaper tells the truth.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 347ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 in Ireland in 1954 there had been warnings about carbon dioxide build up and the warnings had continued. Here we see by 1985 – and I’m thinking of the Villach meeting here-  the scientists who studied this sort of thing were willing to come out and say “holy shit.” Thus from late ‘85 onwards, you see more and more reports, more scientists addressing Congress, parliament, etc. saying, “Look, this problem we warned you about tentatively, our warnings are no longer tentative. We’re damn sure there is trouble ahead.” 

The specific context was , I don’t know, some National Academy of Sciences report, whatever. 

What I think we can learn from this is that it takes a long time to get the attention of politicians, because well, various reasons, but we should not forget the politicians are not particularly bright people, very few of them have a science background, and they’re interested in problems that they can be seen to be solving before the next election, or at least be on a palpable, plausible pathway to solving. They also don’t like to go up against determined, rich, vested interests. 

What happened next The climate issue really exploded in 1988. And we now have 40 years of failure to look at and rue.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 13, 1882 – William “Coal Question” Jevons dies

August 13,1991 – clouds and silver linings 

August 13, 2004 – “Stabilisation wedges”

August 13, 2007 – Newsweek nails denialists

August 13, 2009 – Senate kibboshes “CPRS”

Categories
Neologisms

Another neologism – “Melt-schmerz”

Here’s a new, slightly light-hearted, neologism about a very NON-light-hearted topic.

Meltschmerz (Hudson: [ˈmɛltʃmɛɐ̯ts] ⓘ; literally “melting-pain”) is a Fafocenic concept describing the feeling experienced by individuals and groups  who believe that reality, specifically physics, is about to punch them in the face very hard,[y][oh y] resulting in “a mood of weariness or bowel-loosening terror about life arising from the acute awareness of atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up and the present and future suffering”.

It is a riff on weltzschmerz, obvs.

Categories
Canada Denial

August 12, 2006 – Canadian press platforming idiots

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 12th, 2006,

August 12 2006 Globe and Mail “meet Mr Cool” article by Charles Montgomergy, about Tim Ball.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 climate was back on the agenda because of the ratification by Russia of Kyoto, the EU emissions trading scheme, and especially Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth. And so, as sure as night follows day, the denialists were being given puff pieces and free air time, because, in part of journalistic “balance”, see balance as bias, but also because the people who own the networks and the newspapers want it that way, (it’s never just one thing, or very rarely)

What I think we can learn from this is that empty suits who were saying things that are useful for the millionaires and billionaires will get lots of free air time, and that many journalists are basically stenographers to power with delusions of integrity and competence.

What happened next Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. Its emissions continue to skyrocket, thanks to the tar sands, and, like Australia, it is suffering the physical consequences of climate change faster than other nations. And of course, the people and species suffering those consequences tend to be the ones who didn’t cause it. Well, certainly the other species.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 12, 1970 – US Senate warned about climate change 

August 12, 1990 – Channel 4 shows crackpot documentary “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” 

August 12 2003 – French heatwave 

August 12, 2009 – Deutsche bank enters modelling war in Australia 

August 12, 2010 – BZE launches energy plan for Australia 

Categories
Uncategorized

“Weather records no longer exist” by Sybrand Frietema de Vries

By Sybrand Frietema de Vries, expert in collective local energy solutions based in Fryslân. First published in Dutch newspaper Friesch Dagblad, December 11, 2020.

November was a delightful month in the Netherlands. Remarkably warm, with few storms and considerably drier than usual.

Newspapers published photos of people out for a walk, enjoying the chance to escape the confinement of staying indoors. Accompanying articles discussed—with undisguised delight—a number of temperature records. A November month had never been quite so pleasant before.

It seems as though meteorologists have taken on a new daily task: reporting yet another new weather record. And not just this past November, and not just in the Netherlands.

This year, rainfall records were set in several countries simultaneously over short periods. The number and intensity of storms in the Atlantic Ocean reached unprecedented levels this hurricane season. Entire continents were plagued by unprecedented drought or extreme heat—or both. 

Every year, we revel in records. This is what we want to hear, read, and see in competitions. Records align with our own local expectations and easily transcend borders and cultures. Their measurability is convenient and universally understood; sometimes the numbers alone speak volumes: Inzell, 14:55.9. (And for those to whom that doesn’t resonate: in 1971, Ard Schenk was the first to skate the ten-kilometer race in under fifteen minutes. On an outdoor track.)

But there is one type of record we must unfortunately bid farewell to: the weather record. The trend line tracing the highest temperatures keeps rising. The number of severe storms and downpours is steadily increasing. The area of ​​forest lost to fire grows consistently larger each year. We are forced to conclude: there are so many weather records that, effectively, they no longer exist.

After all, you don’t note on a weekly basis that your growing teenage son has set a new ‘height record.’ No, he is simply growing..

The climate crisis has triggered irreversible weather trends. Our planet is warming up. As a result, we are facing extreme weather phenomena that are largely unfamiliar or poorly understood. When we measure these and compare them with past centuries, the picture doesn’t fit. Our brains try to frame them using familiar concepts—like averages or maximums—but that doesn’t work.

It is a bitter pill, but we must stop thinking in terms of “normal” and “records.” We need to learn to recognize new weather trends and adapt our surroundings to unfamiliar extremes.

Fortunately, that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy beautiful autumn or winter weather. We certainly should.

All rights reserved, published with permission of the author.

With thanks to Merien ten Houten and Sybrand Frietema

Categories
Activism

Of misfortune cookies and newspaper headlines in the Fafocene

There was a play by Susan Sontag, back in the day, called Alice in Bed.  It was about the life of Alice James, sister of Henry.  Within it was a riff, about how any fortune cookie – “you will meet a mysterious stranger who brings peril”  or “ a friend will supply much needed joy” etc – can be immeasurably improved by adding the words “in bed” at the end.

Well, that’s one set of emissions sorted.  Now for the Fafocene.

If you’re reading this site at all regularly, you surely already know, but for any newbies, this: From here on, alongside breaking hearts and breaking ecosystems, we’re gonna be breaking a lot of weather “records”. The hottest day, the longest drought, the biggest firestorm, whatever.

These will get coverage while we still have newspapers and news outlets because if it bleeds it leads, and there will be a lot of bleeding.  That is bleeding obvious.

So what I propose is that whenever you see one of these stories, you do a Simpsons meme on it and add “SO FAR” at the end in big red friendly letters.  Here’s a worked example.

It would be better if someone makes a meme generator that automates this process, maybe? Idk.

Categories
Italy

August 11, 2021 – Syracuse boils…

Five years ago today, August 11 2021, what was the hottest day in Europe (so far) 

The maps show temperatures in southern parts of Portugal could reach a staggering 50C on July 28 – which would be the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe. The current European temperature record is 48.8C, registered near the city of Syracuse in Sicily on August 11, 2021. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/weather-heatwave-spain-portugal-europe-37451862

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 417ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 with the coming of the industrial revolution we added to the existing issue of deforestation with a NEW way of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. GO US, the planet trashing hairless murder apes.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have little or no interest in our own futures. We seem to be operating on the assumption that a Deus or a Machina will descend to save us.

What happened next. We kept adding 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, with entirely predictable consequences.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 11, 2005 – Bob Brown in the Senate 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut) 

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe” 

Categories
Australia

August 11, 1999 – Australian Senate calls for a report on climate

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, August 11th, 1999,

On 11 August 1999 the Senate referred the following matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August 2000 (which was later extended to 8 November 2000): (what became Nov 2000 “The Heat is On” report

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 if you were paying attention, you could see that the domestic and international policies around climate change were heading in a bad direction. Although the Kyoto Protocol had been signed, and even by various nations, its actual ratification and passage into international law was looking shaky, and scientists were saying it wouldn’t be enough. By this time, you had Green senators and the Democrats in the Australian Senate whowere also on the case and they used the usual procedures to get a report to be written. Sometimes senate reports can be really consequential and influential, especially when an issue is new – for example, the 1968-69 Senate Standing Committee on Air Pollution and also the one on Water Pollution; they were influential. This one not so much, but what do you expect, it’s a crowded field by now.

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians do what politicians can within parliament. If you really want to see social change, it’s parliament yes, but it’s Parliament Plus, it’s all of the social movements and the civil society groups. But they can rarely get their game faces on for any length of time, and anyway, they’re up against incredibly powerful, clever, determined, well-resourced incumbency actors. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next it would be 2006 before climate change became “an issue” in Australian politics. Not that this helped particularly.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 11, 2005 – Bob Brown in the Senate 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut) 

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe”