Categories
Australia

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

Twenty three years ago, on this day, October 20th, 2001, four years to the day after they’d tried to give him solar panels, Greenpeace nailed John Howard.

Greenpeace noted in an October 20 [2001] media release, “In its ongoing attempt to avoid an agreement that has any legal consequences, Australia has tried to weaken the whole Protocol by substituting the word ‘should’ for the world ‘shall’ throughout the compliance agreement, weakening its legal power. [Compare Paris panic in 2015] Australia also wants to be able [to] play with its figures on forestry and land use, and is trying to get the rules written so it doesn’t even have to say exactly where the forests are.”

Jennifer Morgan from the World Wildlife Fund described Australia as the “leader of the backtrack camp”. The Climate Action Network awarded Australia a “Fossil of the Day” award for trying to gut the compliance regime.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-kyoto-protocol-rescued-again

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that here we were, a month after 911 and a month before the next Federal Election. John Howard was still being a prick on climate. Of course he was. He was breathing. He had defeated an emissions trading scheme. He had slowed down renewable energy as much as he could. And he’d already kind of promised that he wasn’t going to ratify Kyoto, (though he didn’t make that announcement until June of the following year.)

What we learn is that Greenpeace has been telling the truth to Howard and all of these politicians but you shall know the truth and the truth really shall not set you free. Anyone who tells you that the truth will set you free is either a god-bother, a helpless liberal or hasn’t been paying any attention.

What happened next? Howard won another two elections (2001 and 2004), caused more mayhem and despondency. And the emissions kept climbing. And the coal exports. And the LNG. And the profits accruing to a few companies. And here we are.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

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…

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage

CCS in the UK, on the 13th anniversary of first policy failure…

You may have read a bit about Carbon Capture and Storage recently.  CCS is (still) being used as a way to avoid asking really hard questions about our future as a species (that is not hyperbole). A thread.

1/13

200 yrs ago, in 1824, a French scientist, Fourier, proved that SOMETHING in the atmosphere was trapping some heat from the Sun. If not, the planet would be much much colder. 30 yrs later Eunice Foote and John Tyndall showed carbon dioxide (C02) was a ‘greenhouse gas’.

2/13

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

The basic problem is when humans burn oil, coal and gas (“fossil fuels”) for energy, heat, making stuff, carbon dioxide is released as a by-product. Levels of C02 in the atmosphere have gone from 280ppm 200 yrs ago to 422 today. And climbing. Heat is trapped.

3/13

The Keeling Curve

CCS is supposed to stop some of the C02 getting into the atmosphere.  But even if (and it is a HUGE IF) it worked perfectly, at scale, it would be merely slowing down the increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Again, C02 traps heat. Too much heat is Really Bad.

4/13

CCS as a set of technologies is simultaneously old and new (as I call it here – Schrodinger’s Cat of a technology.

In the UK, there was brief interest in CCS in the late 1980s, but it really only kicked up in early 2000s.

A Schrodinger’s cat climate technology promised £22bn of UK taxpayer funding.

5/13

Oh, who am I? I’m the guy who “wrote the book” about the “CCS in the UK: History, politics and policies”.

Anyhoo. BP tried to get taxpayer support for a pilot project (DF1) in 2005-7. Treasury said nope.

6/13

Then there was a competition (b/c they always provide efficient winners, oh yes).  It ran from 2007 and fizzled out on this day in 2011.

(This was the era of the battle over “capture-ready” coal plants. Another thread…)

7/13

October 19, 2011 – First UK CCS competition fizzles out

More funding and another competition followed. In November 2015 George Osborne, then Treasurer, dismissively kneecapped it. Industry was furious.  No, FUCKING FURIOUS. It looked like CCS might be dead.  Then came the Kipling Manoeuvre….

8/13

From 2018 to now, there has been rhetorical support for CCS. And endless consultations and dribs and drabs of (big) money.  But the future is not clear.

9/13

My guesstimate fwiw is 

a) some projects will be begun

b) there will be fierce opposition from some locals and NGOs

c) There will be very entrenched positions

d) The winner will be …  ???

10/13

This matters because we have

a) Limited money

b) Policy bandwidth and

c) Even less time (actually, net zero time)

To sort all this out.

11/13

I will be trying to point out the gaps and silences in the positions of pro and anti-CCS types.

(My position – defo a case for industrial ccS, but oil & gas sector will use that as figleaf).

My writing on CCS is here.

12/13

My CCS writing

Meanwhile, emissions climb, concentrations climb, temperatures cli… rocket. And the consequences move from the innocent to the culpable.

Only you buying my book can prevent catastrophe.

13/13

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Scotland United Kingdom

October 19, 2011 – First UK CCS competition fizzles out

Thirteen years ago, on this day, October 19th, 2011,

On 19th October, 2011, the Government terminated negotiations with the ScottishPower consortium as the Government considered it could not agree a deal that would represent value for money (NAO, 2012). The first CCS competition ended without any winner.

(Ko, 2018: 66)

Longannet scheme (Scotland, SSE) collapses – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/19/david-cameron-longannet-carbon-capture

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that BP had been interested in using CCS on one of its projects in 2005. proposed it. They pulled the plug in 2007, because Treasury wouldn’t comply. Then a CCS competition had been established in November 2007, Gordon Brown launched it at a WWF event. And the idea was it would be up and running within a couple of years. Ha ha. The competition dragged on and dragged on and dragged on, eventually whittled down to only one interested company. And they’d only been doing it because they were going to be given loads of money to keep the stranded assets afloat. And even then, that didn’t come off. But a second competition was already waiting in the wings.

What we learn is that CCS has a long, long history of failure in the UK, of broken promises of delayed and then ended schemes. Hopefully by now I can point to my book?

What happened next was that a second competition was set up as was the UKCCS Research Centre, some money for workshops and networking and so forth. And then the competition came undone in November 2015… And then, well, you should buy my book!!

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

Categories
Energy Science

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

Fifty years ago, on this day, October 18th, 1974,

Alvin Weinberg, ‘Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy’, Science 186 (18 October 1974), 205. Weinberg wrote that the world might reach ‘climatological limits’ within 30–50 years. Noting the uncertainty surrounding the results so far, he called for two responses. ‘First, climatologists should recognize the profound implications of this question and do the basic research in global modelling … so that, say 20 years from now, we can base our energy policy on a much sounder understanding of this limit than we now possess’; and, second, since the ‘problem of global effects of energy production, like….’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the United Nations Environment Programme had been going for a couple of years, since the Stockholm conference. Science had been publishing articles, Weinberg had been paying attention. The modelling conference had just finished in Sweden. Weinberg as a big fan of nuclear thought that this was another selling point for nuclear – that its carbon emissions were so much lower.

What we learn why it matters is that the pro nuclear gloss on climate mitigation has been around for a long time. Weinberg was a serious player. 

What happened next? Well, in 1979, Weinberg visited Australia and gave a speech which got reported in the Canberra Times and so forth. It explicitly mentioned nuclear as a climate solution. And again, that puts into context; what I thought was unusual in 1981 of the various Liberal and Country Party Senators talking about it was not that big a deal. People knew by the early 1980s, people knew who were paying any real attention.

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

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

Categories
Uncategorized United Kingdom

Switch from “not happening” to “geo-engineering” underway among Conservatives

The long-anticipated shift from “climate change is a leftie anti-progress hoax” to “it’s too late to do anything except geo-engineer the planet” is underway.

Speaking on the far-right television programme GB News on Wednesday 16th October s, former Conservative minister Jacob Rees-Mogg on Wednesday 16th October said the following

“When it comes to climate change, most of the public discourse surrounds hair shirt measures to cut emissions and phase out fossil fuels. But is this really where our focus ought to be?

“Perhaps, instead of being obsessed by futile attempts to stop climate change, a goal that’s looking increasingly out of reach, we should turn our attention to the virtues of green technologies and innovative developments to tackle some of the most practical and immediate challenges.”

[continues ad nauseam]

For once failing to meet the award-winning standards for fierce scrutiny, historical awareness and political balance for which GN News is globally respected [yes, that is SARCASM] the journalist in question failed to ask Rees-Mogg the following questions

a) Had he ever peddled climate skepticism (e.g. in a 2013 opinion piece in the Telegraph), despite his political hero Margaret Thatcher having made several ‘time to save the world’ speeches in 1988-1990

b) Had he tried to stop his mate Michael Gove in an (ultimately unsuccessful) effort to remove climate change from the National Curriculum.

c) Had he ever tried to stop his former boss, Prime Minister David Cameron from “cutting the green crap” like house insulation, greener transport etc, that would have led to lower bills (and probably lower emissions)

d) Is this not simply a classic ‘reverse-ferret’ – changing position so quickly that everyone will be too busy feeling their head spin to ask obvious questions about intelligence, integrity and the rest of it (that nobody expects from politicians anymore anyway).

The answers are, of course. Yes, no., no, and yes.

Sources on Rees-Mogg’s climate positions – Guardian, Big Issue, They Work For You, Desmog

This switch from “not happening” to “too late to do anything” is time-honoured, and across many issues. See this 1986 clip from the classic BBC sitcom Yes Prime Minister. “The standard Foreign Office four stage procedure”

It’s been happening around climate, intermittently, since the late 2000s.

Categories
Commonwealth Sea level rise United Kingdom

October 17, 1987 – CHOGM meeting at which Margaret Thatcher has climate “brought home to her”

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 17th, 1987, in Vancouver, a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting took place, and other leaders (especially the small island states) tried to bend UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s ear on the problem of climate change.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since 1985, scientists have been trying to warn politicians. Low lying nations and so forth were paying attention because they could see the writing on the wall or the waves washing over the seawall. And Thatcher by her own account, copped an earful at this Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. For all the good it did – it would be almost another year before she would give her speech at the Royal Society

What we learn is that you have to tell ideologues the same thing many many times before they’ll pay any attention. And God what a stupid species we are. 

What happened next? Yeah, you’ve got the explosion of interest in 1988.

In 1989, the CHOGM lot received Martin Holdgate’s report, which had been commissioned at Vancouver.

https://thecommonwealth.org/news/archive-holdgate-report-climate-change

Shridath Ramphal, then Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, who commissioned the report from an international expert group at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit in Vancouver, Canada, in 1987, described the threat of climate change in his foreword as “truly global in its implications”.

He said: “If the Earth is to warm by even the most modest of the various projections, there could be far reaching, long term implications for natural ecological systems, farming, the design of major energy and water projects and for low lying areas that could be affected by rising sea level.”

The Holdgate report called for a “major international initiative” to establish “global responsibilities” for preventing unmanageable rises in the world’s temperature. It also spelt out practical steps which poor and small countries like Guyana, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Pacific islands, could take to monitor their changing environment.

 You’ve got the November 1989 Male declaration about sea level rise. You then have the toothless 1992 UNFCCC (the climate treaty).

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 17, 1973 – the coup at the Australian Conservation Foundation

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

October 17, 2009 – Maldives cabinet meets underwater

Categories
United States of America

October 16, 1979 – Exxon memo on the potential impact of fossil fuel combustion

Forty five years ago, on this day, October 16th, 1979, an Exxon Memo on Potential Impact of Fossil Fuel Combustion is sent.

see also https://thenib.com/climate-crisis-comix/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that. Exxon had been looking at CO2 build up. They’d had discussions with oceanographer Wally Broecker. There were bits of equipment on oil tankers and so forth. And they’d done the calculations. And they basically knew what was coming, and made fairly accurate predictions of what was coming. See for example this June 6, 1978 presentation.

What we learn is that in the words of the website, “Exxon knew.”

What happened next. In early 1980 Exxon and Texaco were talking about setting up a climate taskforce. As late as October 25, 1982 – Exxon held “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium. But then in the mid-80s, Exxon pulled the plug, and started funding denial, started making as much money as they could, which is a lot of money. And in 2006, the Royal Society had taken the unusual step of telling them to knock it off with the denial – September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”– with limited effects. Dark money is still going towards these groups. Whether it’s Exxon or Exxon’s mates, who can say. 

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 16, 1956 – will H-bombs knock the world off balance!?

October 16, 1990 – Green groups say yes to “Ecologically Sustainable Development”

Categories
Australia

October 15, 1999- Australian economy headed for trouble because of carbon dioxide emissions, admits government through gritted teeth.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, October 15th, 1999 the Australian Financial Review reported that ,

The Federal Government has conceded for the first time that its greenhouse gas policy could reduce the competitiveness of key sectors of the Australian economy.

The Australian Financial Review has obtained a draft record of an August 25 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments’ High Level Group on Greenhouse. It puts the Commonwealth position in these terms: “Competitiveness is fundamentally linked to the economy as a whole and not individual sectors – no government could promise that the competitiveness of individual sectors would remain unchanged over time.”

Hordern, N. 1999. Greenhouse policy `can affect competitiveness’. The Australian Financial Review, 15 October, p. 6.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard Government had come in in 1996 even more hostile to climate action than Keating. It had ramped up the opposition to international commitments. It had done greenwash where necessary and naked contempt when it thought it could.  In 1997 it had been cornered into making a few promises that it was now trying to backtrack on, and water down. But it couldn’t always bluster past the advocates of action at the state level, including New South Wales Premier Bob Carr…

 What we learn is that in 1999 even the Howard Government realised that continuing to ignore climate impacts was going to cause problems for The Australian Economy.

What happened next? Howard continued to do everything he could to avoid any climate action, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, he continued to undermine any progress on renewables, and to kill a carbon price twice (in 2000 and 2003). Internationally, he refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (despite having extorted the most unimaginably generous terms) and joined in various “spoiler” activities with the US.

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 15, 1971 – “Man’s Impact on the Climate” published

October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns…

Categories
United States of America

October 14, 1980 – Barry Commoner’s “bullshit” advert…

Forty-two years ago, on this day, October 14th, 1980, scientist Barry Commoner is running for president, and a ‘shocking ad’ is released.

“It’s all bullshit!”

“What?!”

“Carter- Reagan-Anderson, it’s all bullshit.”

See also https://time.com/4584919/barry-commoner-shocking-ad/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Barry Commoner had been banging on about the threats to the environment for a looong time. His first book, Science and Survival, had come out in 1966 and was a crucial node for awareness of climate change. And he finally decided to run for President to highlight the issues. Of course, that was the election that one of the Koch brothers also stood on a so-called “libertarian” platform. 

Anyway, Commoner’s campaign was not getting a lot of attention, of course. His campaign manager had the bright idea to put out an advert saying that voters should pay attention to Commoner if they were sick of bullshit. And this was back in the days when swearing was newsworthy. And it got Commoner a certain amount of attention though, by all accounts Commoner was not happy since it kind of cut across his preferred reputation as a serious and non joke/ attention-seeking candidate.

What we learn is that if you want to get attention, you have to do something newsworthy. Because the media are bored of it reporting actual issues. Because they know that the voters want a circus instead. The voters want a circus because what they can choose doesn’t really matter anyway, so they may as well be entertained. And also, some of the voters are really fucking thick. But that’s not really their fault. Education System, schooling system and society are all designed to make people thick, because thick people are easy to manipulate. The last thing you want is an intelligent electorate. What a freaking nightmare that would be. 

What happened next Commoner lost, obviously. Reagan got up. Gaia help us all.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

October 14, 1974 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor is warned about carbon dioxide build-up.

October 14, 1977 – a UNESCO education conference mentions climate change…

Categories
Austria Economics of mitigation Energy Science

October 13, 1993 – IIASA and the IAMs – Gaia help us all

Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 13th, 1993,

Nebojša Nakićenović, William Nordhaus, Richard Richels and Ferenc Toth, Integrative Assessment of Mitigation, Impacts, and Adaptation to Climate Change, Proceedings of a Workshop Held on 13–15 Oct. 1993 (Laxenburg: IIASA, 1993)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was tha the cold war -scientist shall talk unto scientist’ outfit the International Institute for Advanced Science Analysis (IIASA) was about 20 years old. It had a surprisingly long history of banging on about climate change and energy, back to 1975, with William Nordhaus and then Hafele’s energy studies. And they put together some workshops. And they were big fans of all their fancy computer models: really in love with them. 

What we learn.  And here we are 30 years later. And they just keep redrawing lines and magic shit into existence. Making heroic assumptions about the speed of development and deployment of offshore wind and hydrogen and so forth, bearing no resemblance to the real world. But how are you gonna make the numbers add up? 

So we’re trapped in these ridiculous mental models and computer models, because we don’t tell the truth to ourselves about ourselves. That we screwed the pooch and is it no one’s short-term career interest to be the one who says “hey guys, I think we screwed the pooch.” You are not going to get promoted – in fact, you’re not going to keep your bloody job full stop if you do that…

What happened next so I’m sure that in 1993 there were people with misgivings. They didn’t speak up. I’m sure that there were other people who had misgivings in 2003, didn’t speak up. 2013 didn’t speak up. 2023 didn’t speak up. Why would you? 

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 13, 1990/97 – Ros Kelly defends the Interim Planning Target vs Australia does nothing

October 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published