Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

September 10, 2015 – one of those “whither CCS?” articles

Ten years ago, on this day, September 10th, 2015, the Financial Times did one of its “Big Reads.”

More than $30bn has been committed, or spent, on carbon capture and storage schemes to deal with CO2 emissions curb climate change but so far the sector – the preferred option of the fossil fuels industry – has fallen short of expectations. By Pilita Clark

Today it is just a scrubby field next to the enormous Drax coal and wood pellet power station in the English county of North Yorkshire. But in a matter of months, this could be the spot where the UK finally gives the go-ahead for what has become one of the world’s most perplexing tools in the quest to combat climate change : a carbon capture and storage plant.

Clark, P. 2015. Miracle machine or white elephant? FT BIG READ: CLIMATE CHANGE. Financial Times, 10 September, p.11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it was 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 the much hyped Paris COP was only two months away, and the full-page adverts of greenwash were starting to appear in the pink’un (aka the Financial Times). So, time to let one of the hacks (quite a good one, imo) educate the rich.

The specific context was that it was also hot times for CCS policy – a second competition (the first had fizzled out)) was picking up speed.

What I think we can learn from this  is that we’ve been talking about turning points and last chances for a very very long time.

What happened next

The second competition for CCS was very abruptly cancelled (people were seriously butt-hurt, understandably).

Paris was a joke, but one we still, apparently, have to take seriously.

And Drax?  Well, there’s an FCA investigation about its “sustainability” claims just firing up…

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: 

September 10, 1957 – The Times covers the International Geodesy Conference… – All Our Yesterdays

September 10, 1973- Ozone concerns on display in Kyoto…

September 10, 2007 – shiny #climate promises versus grim reality

September 10, 2008 – Greenpeace Kingsnorth protesters acquitted

Categories
Business Responses Denial Incumbent strategies Industry Associations United States of America

September 9, 1997 – “Global Climate Information Project”

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, September 10th, 1997 another pro-apocalypse propaganda outfit was launched, ahead of the UNFCCC negotiations to take place in Kyoto (COP-3).

“Global Climate Information Project” launched” 

Launched on September 9, 1997, by some of the nation’s most powerful trade associations, the Global Climate Information Project (GCIP) has rolled out an ambitious campaign for combating possible emission regulations courtesy of the Kyoto conference.

Through an advertising campaign that, according to GCIP figures, has already spent more than $3 million in newspaper and television spots and could spend as much as $13 million, the GCIP aims to cast doubt upon the need for emissions controls by questioning the politics and the science behind a United Nations agreement.

Writing on the media campaign unveiled by the GCIP, Bruce Clark of the Financial Times remarked that it “could become one of the most expensive lobbying efforts since the ‘Harry and Louise’ commercials that helped doom” the Clinton administration’s health-care reform proposal”

“A Clear View, Vol 4, No 16, Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2025, 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 business interests always mobilise and collaborate to face down challenges to their right to socialise the costs and privatise the profits. There’s lots of good research on this – Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway remains a good place to start.

The specific context was that Kyoto was coming and business had already done a great job in demonising it, in boxing in US Senators. But you can never be too sure, so thus the “Information” (sic) Project.

What I think we can learn from this. The war for the public mind goes on, and on.  

What happened next – the war for the public mind went on. 

GCIP ran a whole bunch of adverts on American TV.

New battalions were formed, new weapons tested. The strategic imperative remains unchanged – keep the peasants too busy to fight back. Buy off the smart one that you can, sideline or dephysicalise those you can’t.

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: 

September 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

September 9, 1971 – Stephen Schneider’s letter, and a World Model

Fifty four years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1971 climate scientist Stephen Schneider wrote a letter to the New York Times about some industry bullshit that the Times had run as a n op-ed.

AND on the same day, things were a foot in the United Kingdom

“Whereas Bray had been highly sceptical of the World model, Cottrell had been enthused by its demonstration. Returning to Britain, he proposed that the British government develop a similar model, stating his belief that ‘Forrester’s approach is the most important development of its kind since Keynes’ general theory’.117

Given the centrality of Keynesianism in post-war economic policy, this was a significant claim. Heath, as his early enthusiasm for management science had revealed, had some interest in forecasting and simulation, and gave his permission for a scoping study on the feasibility of a British world model. Cottrell held a meeting on the subject at the Cabinet Office in September 1971, in which he had told the assembled civil servants that developing a global model for British purposes would require £50,000 and four staff. In response, an unnamed civil servant argued that the Treasury had a more sophisticated econometric model that it used for forecasting. Despite this criticism, the general idea of a global environmental model was well received, and further work was proposed.118 “

Histories of Technology, the Environment and Modern Britain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2025, 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 the late 1960s people started worrying about the global impact of industrialisation and population growth (as distinct from concerns about localised pollution).

The specific context was that a) Schneider was already making a name for himself as combative and b) the British state was beginning to think about systems modelling (aware that the Club of Rome report was coming)…

What I think we can learn from this is that there was mention of carbon dioxide and limits to growth way back when. It had pushed out from the undergrowth in the late 1960s…

What happened next: By 1973, we were back to sleep, for the most part. A few new NGOs, a couple of magazines (Your Environment, The Ecologist).  It is very very hard to combat a world view.

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: 

September 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

Categories
Australia

 September 8, 2000 – “Minchin’s Quiet Win”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 8th, 2000, Lenore Taylor, then at the Fin, wrote an interesting piece.

Senator Nick Minchin had a big Cabinet win on greenhouse policy two weeks ago.

It was a win that had been preceded by months of bitter debate, by several inconclusive Cabinet discussions and by a frenzy of lobbying by business organisations all of which occurred with very little public fanfare.

What he won was a series of promises by Government to Industry to try to overcome their deep concerns about greenhouse-related investment uncertainty.

But it’s very hard to reassure someone about what’s down the track if you don’t know what’s down the track.

And given that no-one knows whether the Kyoto Protocol will ever be ratified, nor what its final form will be if it is, this is a very winding and difficult-to-predict track indeed.

Taylor. L. 2000. Minchin’s quiet win on greenhouse policies. The Australian Financial Review, 8 September, p.16

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. As of 2025, 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 both ALP and Coalition elites were deeply hostile to any action on climate change (because their current business mates would suffer, and because they just didn’t really buy what the scientists were saying).

The specific context was that a proposal for an Emissions Trading Scheme had been brought before the Cabinet in August. Minchin was the guy who killed it, while Honest John sat on smiling, like Emperor Palpatine.

What I think we can learn from this is that the governments of settler colonies are gonna do this. But so are other governments. It’s just what governments do….

What happened next

In 2003 it was John Howard’s turn to get his hands dirty – in response to a united Cabinet. He delayed for a month, then came back and said “nope.” There is still time to get him to the Hague, you know…

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: 

September 8, 1972 – Green activist vanishes off face of Earth… – All Our Yesterdays

September 8, 1990 – Australian #climate denialist spouting his nonsense…

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.

Categories
Australia Business Responses

September 7, 1993 – Business Council of Australia meets to get its resistance-to-climate-policy ducks in a row

Thirty two years ago, on this day, September 7th, 1993, Business meets to get ducks in a row…

From Business Council of Australia Bulletin 102, October 1993

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 357ppm. As of 2025, 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 business had made sure that the Australian government didn’t get carried away with the idea that Australia should pull its weight in the whole “saving the planet” thing that the commie-greenies were wanging on about. In this they’d been very successful, with help from senior ALP Federal ministers. 

The specific context was that the UNFCCC had been signed in June 1992. The ratification process was proceeding faster than might have been expected (usually these things drag on for years) so meeting in September 1993 was a good idea, from their perspective – make sure they had the ability to be ready with arguments, allies and actions when the greenie lunatics tried to push for action.

What I think we can learn from this is that – as per Adam Smith – “‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices’.” Or, if he were writing now “trash the future for present profit and convenience. And to own the libs.”

What happened next – a carbon tax was defeated in late 1994-early 1995, and that was really game over for any response to climate change in Australia. To be clear, the carbon tax on its own would NOT have been enough. But without a price signal, and more money for research and development of wind and solar, you can just kiss the planet goodbye. And we did. 

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: 

September 7, 1927 – television, the drug of a nation, first cultivated – All Our Yesterdays

September 7, 1936 – The Anthropocene does for the Thylacine…

September 7, 1977 – #climate scientist Stephen Schneider on Carson for the last time…

September 7, 1988 – media looking for more alarmist scientists… – All Our Yesterdays

September 7, 2005 – “rule out nuclear” say Aussie green outfits.

Categories
United States of America

September 6, 1979 – Exxon supports American Petroleum Institute on “do nothing” about climate

Forty six years ago, on this day, September 6th, 1979, the American Petroleum Institute’s “do nothing” suggestion was getting some love from RJ Campion, Exxon’s climate scientist.

1979 Exxon Memo about API’s CO2 Research Strategy – Climate Files

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. As of 2025, 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 the late 1970s scientists – both employed by the state and some of the oil majors, had a pretty good idea what was coming….

The specific context was – well, here’s a passage from Ben Franta’s PhD

“Although Exxon’s research program was notable for its sophistication, the company wasn’t alone in monitoring climate science. By 1979, the API had formed a task force focused on climate change composed of representatives from the major oil companies, including Exxon’s Henry Shaw. Initially named the CO2 and Climate Task Force and in 1980 renamed the Climate and Energy Task Force, the group’s internal memos show that much like Exxon, it viewed climate research as a strategic tool to influence public perception and government regulation in favor of the fossil fuel industry.

One of the earliest known memos regarding the task force, from 1979 and written by Exxon scientist Raymond Campion, recommended the group not pursue original climate change research, because “the industry’s credibility on such issues is not high at the present time, and should an API study indicate no serious CO2 problems, the results would be greeted with skepticism.”

What I think we can learn from this is that there were paths not taken. Don’t get me wrong – even if we’d taken serious action in the late 1970s, there was still going to be serious trouble ahead. But now, well….

What happened next: The Reagan administration came in and it would not be until the very end of that shitty period – in 1988 – that the climate problem finally broke through and became an issue.

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: 

September 6, 1991 – Titan has a greenhouse effect… – All Our Yesterdays

September 6, 2000 – Emission scheme defeated, it’s time for a gloating press release… #Climate #auspol

September 6, 2007 – “The Future of Coal under Cap and Trade” hearings…

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

September 5, 2005 – protest about the brown coal in Melbourne

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 6th, 2005,

Stop Hazelwood expansion now!

Monday, 5 September 2005

The Bracks Government will put at stake its environmental credentials in the lead up to next year’s State election if it allows Hazelwood power station to expand, green groups have warned.

The call comes as groups rally – around a three-storey inflatable cooling tower – at the steps of Treasury Place, where Cabinet is meeting today to finalise the proposed expansion of Hazelwood.

According to reports, the Government has signed a deal with Hazelwood, the developed world’s most polluting power station, which would cap its climate change pollution at 445 million tonnes over 25 years. If these reports are correct this deal would:

* renege on the Government’s earlier assurances that it would require reductions in Hazelwood’s pollution;
* allow Hazelwood to continue operating at current emissions levels, which are the worst in Australia and among the worst in the world;
* effectively provide a $16.7 billion subsidy over 25 years from the public purse, based on current European Union figures, if this emissions cap is protected from a future emissions trading scheme; and
* give Hazelwood a licence to continue operating – and polluting – well beyond 2030 and provide no guarantee when the power station will shut down.

Environment Victoria’s Executive Director Marcus Godinho said if this report was correct it would be a dirty deal: “Hazelwood is the number one test for the Bracks Government. An expansion will mean failure, which will be felt at the ballot box. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this decision for the future of the environment, as well as our economy and jobs. An expansion would annihilate the Government’s environmental credibility.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. As of 2025, 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 Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions, from truly filthy brown coal, were high. In 1989 the State Electricity Commission Victoria released a report about what to do about Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We will never know what might have happened (probably not much, tbf) because the SECV got privatised

The specific context was that green groups had been plugging away, without too much sniff of victory, for a very long time.

What I think we can learn from this – we should celebrate the tenacity of the resistance, I guess? While not letting it off the hook for lack of innovation, reflexivity etc.

What happened next

According to wikipedia:

“In 2005, the Bracks government approved an environmental effects statement (EES) that allowed Hazelwood to relocate a road and a section of the Morwell River to allow access to an additional 43 million tonnes of coal in addition to that allowed under the mining licence boundaries set at the time of privatisation. This was estimated to provide sufficient coal for the plant to operate to at least 2030 (prior to decommissioning plans)…. 

Hazelwood was jointly owned by Engie with a 72% share and Mitsui & Co with a 28% share.[4] In 2014, Hazelwood employed 495 staff directly and on average 300 contractors. On 3 November 2016, Engie announced that the entire Hazelwood plant would be closed at the end of March 2017 giving five months notice of the closure.[5][6] The power station closed in March 2017.[7]”

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: 

 September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet – All Our Yesterdays

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
Australia

September 5, 1995 – Australian Aluminium Council joins “Greenhouse Challenge”

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 5th, 1995 , the Australian Aluminium Council announces it is joining the ‘Greenhouse Challenge.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. As of 2025, 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 Australian business interests had, from 1990, fought ferociously against any meaningful climate policy (not that the ALP, then in charge, was ever particularly serious about it).

The specific context was that the “Greenhouse Challenge” was a bullshit voluntary scheme dreamed up to cover up the defeat of a carbon tax. It was so harmless and useful to corporate reputations that even the Aluminium Council liked it.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is all kayfabe. No climate action that would affect the power and prerogatives of the rich would ever be tolerated. If you thought otherwise, well “tell them they’re dreaming”.

What happened next – the Greenhouse Challenge staggered on, with a further reboot when it was too obviously ridiculous. It was put out of its misery in the mid 2000s, having achieved no emissions reductions worthy of the name, but keeping some consultants happy and providing useful PR ammo. So it goes. 

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: 

 September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet – All Our Yesterdays

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
Australia

September 4, 2007 – Climate Change Coalition launches

Eighteen years ago, on this day, September 4th, 2007,  

“4Change, formerly known as the Climate Change Coalition (CCC), was an Australian political party, which was formed in 2007 with a view to accelerate action by politicians from all parties on global warming and climate change. Its position on working towards addressing climate change, stresses cooperation with big business in order to achieve significant progress on the issue. The party therefore advocates a close working relationship between environmentalists and the business community. The CCC was registered as a political party with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on 4 September 2007 and deregistered on 25 March 2010.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, 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 Australia was a year into its Great Climate Awakening. Kevin Rudd was surfing to victory over John Howard’s LNP. But people knew, in their heart of hearts that Rudd wouldn’t deliver enough. (They were right – in the event, he delivered half of eff-all.)

What I think we can learn from this. The game is rigged, y’all…

What happened next. The party deregistered in 2010. What did it achieve? I don’t know.

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: 

September 4, 1969 – Ivory Tower types tell the truth at ANU – All Our Yesterdays
Categories
Uncategorized

September 3, 1963 – Ritchie-Calder sounds the alarm: CO2 build up will “radically affect glaciers and ice caps”

Sixty two years ago, on this day, September 3rd, 1963, at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Aberdeen on the morning of September 3, Ritchie Calder gave a speech on “Man and his Fellow Lodgers; a Question of Co-existence”. 

Discharge of combustion products into the atmosphere had increased its content of carbon dioxide by 10 per cent in a century. The ‘green house effect’ could be expected to increase average mean temperature by 3·6° C in the next 40-50 years. This would radically affect the extent of glaciers and ice-caps with resultant rise in sea- and river-levels and increasing precipitation. 

Mattingly, P.F. NATURE January 18, 1964 vol. 201

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 319ppm. As of 2025, 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 Ritchie-Calder had known about the carbon dioxide problem from at least 1954 (possibly earlier). He had written an article in the News Chronicle, as their science correspondent in 1954.

The specific context was that in March 1963 the Conservation Foundation had held a one-day conference in New York. Frank Fraser-Darling was there, and may have alerted Ritchie-Calder, who was already aware of the issue (he wrote a newspaper article in 1954).

What I think we can learn from this is that members of the British scientific elite were informed about the possibility by the early 1960s (some earlier, obviously).

What happened next

Ritchie-Calder kept banging on about the issue, especially in the late 1960s (see here for example, his “Hell on Earth” presidential address to the Conservation Society in November 1968). The emissions kept climbing. 

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: 

September 3, 1988 – Ann Landers is Greta Thunberg avant la lettre…

September 3, 1990 – Greenies meet Prime Minister, a cautious dance ensues – All Our Yesterdays

September 3, 2002 – “Kyoto cuts too small, so we’re not going to bother”.