Categories
CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter articles

Front page news – “Broecker’s 6 meter rise does not appear unreasonable” – C02 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 5

Here’s the front page story on the CO2 Newsletter for June-July 1980. You can find out more about the newsletter here.

We knew. We knew. Brave diligent people like William Barbat tried to amplify the science, connect the dots, connect the policymakers, the publics and the evidence.

A sense of urgency was introduced to the CO2-greenhouse problem July 30, 1979, when Wallace Broecker (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, “We have good evidence that during the peak of the last interglacial period, the sea level did indeed stand 6 meters (20 feet) higher than it does now, and we don’t think the temperature of the globe was any more than 1 degree Celsius warmer than now.”

A 1 degree C warming is generally expected to be reached shortly after the turn of the century if the CO2 buildup continues as in the past, The energy scenario of F. Niehaus (International Atomic Energy Agency) which might halt a CO2-induced global warming just short of 1 degree C, as shown in the inset, would call for a rapid phase-out of fossil mostly by nuclear, This scenario was presented at the same Senate hearing. 

Broecker’s 6 meter rise (point ‘a’) does not appear unreasonable on a plot of temperatures vs. sea elevations ranging from ice ages to no-icecap conditions. Global average temperatures of 4 degrees to 5 degrees C cooler than now are shown for the ice ages, as used by Svante Arrhenius in his CO2 greenhouse model of 1896. Corresponding to these periods of maximum glacial advance are vestiges of shorelines 85 to 130 meters lower than now as shown by bar +b’. (Lag in destruction of the Laurentide ice sheet precludes

other equilibrium values for conditions cooler than now.)

An approximation of the pre-glacial global temperature as shown here 5. degrees C greater than now (point ‘c’) is derived from Eocene and early Oligocene subtropical and tropical sea-surface temperatures in the literature. These sea temperatures were based on oxygen isotope measurements made on shells of pelagic foraminifera which grew at that time,

Arrhenius had also judged that the average Arctic temperatures prior to the existence of ice sheets in that hemisphere were about 8 to 9 degrees C warmer than modern temperatures, based on observations of vegetation and animal life. Allowing for 3X to 4X polar amplification, this would correspond to an average global temperature 2 degrees to 3 degrees C warmer than now, which essentially matches the consensus of estimates for global warming which may accompany a CO2 doubling, Such a doubling is expected to be reached about 2025-2050 if growth of CO2 production continues its historical rise.

Because the West Antarctic icecap is believed by John Mercer (Institute of Polar Studies, Ohio State) to have formed at cooler temperatures than the Greenland icecap, the potential sea elevation corresponding to the absence of the Greenland ice is shown here as the sum of the rise if both icecaps were absent, that is, 12 meters higher than present. This 12 meter height – if valid can be considered to be a minimum value, for it is likely that the East Antarctic ice cap was smaller than its present size when global temperature was 2 degrees to 3 degrees C warmer.

No estimates have been published yet for how fast the Greenland ice sheet might disappear with a CO2 -induced warming, and much controversy still surrounds estimates of how fast the West Antarctic ice sheet may disappear due to a lack of precedents. If the CO2 buildup continues unabated, the  expected warming over the next half century may take place in about one-tenth the time that a similar temperature rise occurred about 10,3000 degrees before present, during which time sea level was about 0.2 to 0.3 meters per decade according to the compilations of Rhodes Fairbridge.

To illustrate the seriousness of a potential equilibrium with the warmness of a CO2 doubling, the Jefferson Memorial is depicted on the same elevation scale. For other comparisons, the absence of icecaps would correspond to sea level at the clock face of London’s Big Ben and up to the roadway of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

March 18, 2008  Guy Pearse submission to Garnaut review

Fifty years ago, on this day, March 18th 2008, Guy Pearse made his submission to the Garnaut Review, “Protecting Australia’s new climate change response from the Climate mafia”.

Reading the fine print on emissions trading

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australian political elites have been receiving warnings about carbon dioxide build up, really, since 1986, which would be a good date to start. 

I mean, obviously there’s also stuff in the late 1970s and the Office of National Assessments fossil fuels in the greenhouse, though it’s not clear to me how that was distributed and who talked about it.   

National Party senators were also talking about the carbon dioxide problem as well in the early 1980s…

Then, to understand this story, you have to understand that Guy Pearse, (not the actor), had been a young Liberal staffer and speech writer who had gone to the States and then ended up working on briefly, on the Al Gore campaign rather than Republicans in ‘88 because he was switched on to environment and especially climate.

But the Liberal Party was not welcoming place for people concerned about environment and climate, in part, because of the Dolchstuss myth, the stab in the back from 1990. 

Pearse had then been working as a lobbyist, and realised that lots of his friends were busy undermining climate policy, in the agriculture, tourism, et cetera, positions.

He had then done a PhD part time where he basically interviewed his friends and constructed a really brilliant PhD about this. He had done this PhD at Australian National University and with Clive Hamilton as one of his supervisors. Hamilton had already written a book called Running from the Storm about climate policy. 

And Pearse’s work had been exposed to the public in 2006 thanks to an ABC Four Corners documentary on the greenhouse mafia.

The specific context was that alongside all of this in late 2006 partly with thanks to things like the Four Corners documentary, the climate issue had exploded into public consciousness and the new Labor leader of the opposition, Kevin Rudd was using Iraq and a scandal about grain supplies and climate change as his two principal sticks with which to beat long-serving Prime Minister John Howard. 

And one of Rudd’s stunts was to ask economist Ross Garnaut to write a report about the economics of climate change to inform whatever policy degree the Rudd Government, if it were to happen, would put in place. So this was called the Garnaut Review, and here we see Guy Pearse trying to drop some truth bombs.

But “you people can’t handle the truth,” etc, etc.  

What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want to understand a document like this, you have to understand the back story. That takes time and there’s only so many hours in the day. But enough whining about methodology!

What else we learn is that Australian policy elites have been grappling with the climate problem with some success. If your success metric is how to make it look like you’re taking action without taking action.

That has become more difficult over time, because people get wise, get – you can call it “cynical”, – but I would call it sensible.

What happened next

Garnaut produced his report, but it was sidelined because he was going to demand too much of Rudd, who didn’t want to upset rich donors, etc. Rudd got toppled and Garnaut got brought back to inform Gillard’s climate policy process. Pearse kept writing about it for a while, but I think eventually realised that it was a lost cause.

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: 

March 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

March 18, 1970 – Ministry of Transport says “exhaust emission is a minor pollution problem not warranting public expenditure“

 March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

March 18, 2022 – Antarctic has a day 38.5 degrees above seasonal average

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 17, 1982 – An overview of US carbon dioxide/climate research is written. 

Forty four years ago, on this day, March 17th, 1982

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1977, at the beginning of the Carter Administration, there had been workshops, seminars, conferences etc. By 1982 A LOT was known. 

The specific context was that this research was having precisely zero impact on policymakers, who were Reaganaut nutjobs

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty and that we had our chances and we blew them.  

What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. And climbing. And so did the concentrations. 

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: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
CO2 Newsletter commentary Guest post

Gus Speth – “the greatest dereliction of civic responsibility in the history of the Republic”

Gus Speth (read more about him here), very kindly wrote this to accompany the release of CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 5. (his testimony to a US Senate committee, in April 1980, is quoted extensively in it.)

Gus Speth

What does it mean that we knew enough over 50 years ago to begin serious action on climate change, and didn’t?  It certainly does not mean that the issue was forgotten or that the pleas for action were muted or that the problem was too uncertain. I recently wrote a book with MIT Press, They Knew: The U.S. Government’s 50-Year Role in Causing the Climate Crisis (2021), which disposes of those excuses. 

We can see now with some clarity that this failure, which in They Knew I referred to as the greatest dereliction of civic responsibility in the history of the Republic, was due and is still due to the confluence of several problematic factors. 

In the United States, we will never be able to go far enough, or fast enough, doing the right things on climate, as long as our political priorities are ramping up GDP, growing corporate profits, increasing the incomes of the already well-to-do, neglecting the half of America that is just getting by, encouraging unrestrained consumerism, facilitating great bastions of corporate and money power, and helping abroad only modestly or not at all.

These unfortunate factors and forces are all manifestations of a system of political economy that is not suited to today’s needs. Making the needed progress on climate change, and much else, requires an escape from the fetters of today’s system and an urgent transformation to a new—a next—political economy.

Of course, we must use today’s democracy, flawed though it be, to fight efforts seeking to rollback climate protections, to promote rapid deployment of both technology and policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to adapt to changes we cannot forestall. We must do our best in all these regards, but, beginning now, we must also start to build a new democracy that can address the climate crisis here and abroad with the authority needed—a climate-capable democracy.

Building a climate-capable democracy should proceed down two paths. First, today’s political reality cries out for many straightforward pro-democracy reforms. We know a lot about what is needed in this regard, including actions to shore up voting rights, protect election integrity, and otherwise greatly strengthen our democracy’s functioning.

Beyond such measures, however, deeper changes are needed. We need to recognize that democracy depends for its success on a great many factors in the social and economic spheres as well as the political. Consider the following ways our democracy is constrained today.

When economic inequality mocks political equality, democratic progress is difficult. When corporate power dwarfs people power, democratic progress is difficult. When money is the be all and end all of campaign success, democratic progress is difficult. When the voting public is subjected to repeated lies and endless misinformation and propaganda, democratic functioning is difficult. When future generations and the natural world are not accorded political rights, democracy is deprived and unrepresentative.

In short, there is much that must be done, both working within the current system and also building a new one. I am hopeful but by no means confident.

Gus Speth, 2026

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 17, 2013 – Daily Mail idiot makes idiotic climate claims 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2013,

In the four-page version published in the Mail on Sunday on 17 March, he calls climate science the “Great Green Con”. And, when David writes one of his exposés, Carbon Brief like to expose his errors. 

https://storage.googleapis.com/gpuk-archive/blog/climate/mail-fake-cover.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Daily Mail has been mostly but not entirely, hostile to the idea of carbon dioxide build up. There was this article from 1979 based on a book, World without Trees.

But on the whole, the Daily Mail mostly has derided hippies and anti-capitalists and grant grubbing-scientists. Every so often, they’ll run a story or an editorial to show that they’re somehow “balanced”, but they’re not really fooling anyone

The specific context was that their journalist, if you want to call him that, David Rose, was a reliable repeater of the latest denialist memes and talking points and bullshit to come out of the United States. (and, self-confessedly at the time of the Iraq war, security services disinformation). And so it came to pass here, in 2013 after the Copenhagen failure and ahead of David Cameron saying “cut the green crap.”

In 2013, Media Matters named Rose’s publication, the Daily Mail “2013 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year” for its stirring up of “faux controversies about climate science.” In 2014, Greenpeace made an official release noting that David Rose is “not a credible source.”12 13

David Rose – DeSmog

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a conveyor belt of ass-hollering, where denial, half truths and outright lies get washed into newspapers, and then some of it ends up in people’s heads. I am not proposing a hypodermic model;  it is more of an air mist than a hypodermic. 

What happened next The Mail has kept on being awful on climate, alongside the Express, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph, as per Carbon Brief.

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: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

“A sense of urgency was introduced to the CO2-greenhouse problem” -CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1 no. 5

The fifth issue of the CO2 Newsletter, published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982, is live. You can download a pdf and see the full text here.

The eight page issue has a front page story on testimony by Wally Broecker (famous oceanographer) in July 1979.

A sense of urgency was introduced to the CO2-greenhouse problem July 30, 1979, when Wallace Broecker (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, “We have good evidence that during the peak of the last interglacial period, the sea level did indeed stand 6 meters (20 feet) higher than it does now, and we don’t think the temperature of the globe was any more than 1 degree Celsius warmer than now.”

There’s also an editorial, feedback from readers (including people at the UK Climatic Research Unit), excerpts from recent reports and a concluding article “Some Functions and Merits of Energy.”

Categories
Australia Coal

March 16, 1988- Coal strategy, no mention of climate

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1988, a coal industry apparatchik produces a strategy.

Ritchie, J. 1988. Development of a Strategy for the Australian Coal Industry.  Australian Coal Association, paper to the Petroleum & Minerals Review Conference, Canberra, 16 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian coal industry had been experiencing boom times in the 1980s and became the world’s biggest coal exporter in 1984.

There were still, of course, major problems in terms of modernization of equipment, working practices, infrastructure, all the usual stuff. 

The specific context was. What’s fascinating about this proposed coal strategy does not mention climate change at all, March of 1988. If it had been published a year later, even six months later, it would have had to so.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is like one of those nice little digs into the fossil record, where you can see when the asteroid hit fairly exactly. 

What happened next By the end of 1988 climate change was everywhere thanks to the long, hot summer in the States, James Hansen’s testimony, the Changing Atmosphere conference, but also in Australia, there had been lots of activity. In September of 1987 the Greenhouse Project had been launched. This was a co-production of the CSIRO’s division of atmospheric physics and the “Commission for the Future.” They held an academic conference in 1987 and then connected public conferences in 1988 in November. So that’s really when you can date the coming of the greenhouse issue in Australia.

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: 

March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

March 16, 1993 – VAT to be imposed on domestic energy, called a “climate measure”

 March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

March 15,  2019 – Met Police film children at climate protest

Seven years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2019,

Police unlawfully spied on children as young as 10 taking part in a climate strike protest in London, documents have shown.

The previously unseen papers reveal the Metropolitan police were rebuked by the information commissioner’s office (ICO) for video surveillance of the March 2019 protest, which was attended by up to 10,000 children and young people.

Ruling the data-gathering unlawful, the watchdog said the force had failed to consider the privacy rights of the children at the protest, and had not considered their entitlement to added data protections in light of their age.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/05/met-police-illegally-filmed-children-as-young-as-10-at-climate-protest

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 411ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the police are there to protect… the propertied classes and to subdue political dissent. There’s a lot of other window dressing stuff as well. The Met especially, as the biggest police force, leads the way in a lot of this. And ah, and had been harassing community groups, non violent groups, for a long time.

In 1968 the Special Demonstration Squad, aka spy cops. (Though spy cops is broader than that). It sent undercovers in for four or five year deployments not to gather evidence so much but as to demoralise, provoke etc. Which is absolutely what a thriving democracy, where the elites respect the rights of the peasants, behaves like.

The specific context was that in the 1990s – some of us are old enough to remember – it was still iffy for police evidence gatherers to be randomly and routinely gathering video footage at protests and demonstrations..  Now, well, normalised.

What I think we can learn from this is that in late 2018 the climate issue had burst onto the scene again, thanks to the very hot summer, though possibly not so hot by today’s standards, in the UK and Europe, the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees. Greta Thunberg had just started, but the main thing in the UK was Extinction Rebellion, co-founded by Roger Hallam and Gail Bradbrook, and they had announced a declaration of rebellion in Parliament Square. And then a month later, they had occupied five bridges in London.

And no one could know how long this wave of protest would last. So the Met were there busy filming everyone, which has various advantages.

One is you get a nice, fat database to crawl through, potentially disobedient people. 

Number two, it intimidates some people. 

Number three, it forces other people angry about it, to spend time and energy combating police overreach, rather than spending that time and energy on pushing corporations and governments to do more on climate change – so it’s a nice little sort of diversion of energy and resources. 

So it’s a win, win win for the cops, they might, at worst, get a rap on the knuckles from some legal busy-bodies, but they can largely ignore that. 

What happened next The police continued filming, of course, and now have facial recognition profiling technology thanks to various dodgy deals with people like Peter Thiel of Palantir.

The techno dystopia is being rolled out, and except for, I don’t know, Liberty and Netpol and a few other groups, everyone else is shrugging their shoulders and doing their best Bart Simpson, “What are you going to do?” imitation, myself included.

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: 

March 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

March 15, 2001 – “First, Direct Observational Evidence Of A Change In The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Between 1970 And 1997”

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

March 15, 2019 – New Zealand school strike launched, called off.

Categories
Australia

March 14,  2001 – the Australian Federal Government gifts taxpayer money to gas project

Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 14th, 2001,

The Commonwealth Government has offered Sydney Gas Company N/L research and development grant totalling $4.1 million for a coal gas project that will provide Australia with a major environmentally friendly and clean energy source close to its most populous area, Industry Minister Nick Minchin said today.

The project, funded under the R&D Start Program, will exploit the gas resources trapped in the coal beds in the Sydney Basin. It will result in a supply that could have significant economic benefits for the population base on the Eastern seaboard.

It will also generate export earnings if the technology used can be licensed to other sites around the world where trapped gas has to be extracted at great cost.

The $4.1 million grant offer was made by the Industry Research and Development Board and the Commonwealth Government’s business unit, AusIndustry, which administers the Program.

Senator Minchin said the project, when successful, would see significant amounts of clean coal bed methane gas fed directly into the NSW gas supply system.

“There will undoubtedly be major benefits flowing to the consumers because NSW has the largest potential market and at the moment there is no natural gas production in the State,” Senator Minchin said.

“The 1997 Australian Gas Association demand forecast for the eastern States of Australia shows that natural gas will be Australia’s fastest growing energy source. The coal bed methane project in the Sydney Basin will help Australia meet its domestic demand.

“The cleaner gas would also have an impact on the Kyoto Protocol commitments which seeks world-wide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Anon. 2001. $4.1m commonwealth grant offer for NSW R&D gas project. M2 Presswire.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that after pushing (with violence) the existing populations off the land, Australian settlers (or invaders, from another perspective) set about accumulating wealth from various activities – agriculture and then mining.  But this all requires extraction technologies and infrastructure, none of which is cheap. Individual companies aren’t gonna have deep enough pockets, or the appetite for risk. That’s where the state (i.e. the taxpayer) comes in…

The specific context was that the mining booms for export had really kicked in from the late 1960s.  And the state (taxpayer) had been there every step of the way.

What I think we can learn from this is that all the talk of “free markets” is just public relations and fairy tales for the hard-of-thinking.

What happened next  – the infrastructure keeps getting built, regardless of Labor or LNP in charge.  And the emissions keep 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 14, 1988 – Reagan mouths pieties about international scientific cooperation

March 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

 March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

 March 14, 2007 – Australian Treasury eyeroll about politicians on #climate, (scoop by Laura Tingle).

Categories
On This Day

On this Day March 13: UK disses the future (1989), Aussie climate advocates try (and fail) (1992), Bush breaks CO2 prime (2001), UNEP minds the Gap (2010 and ACTU talks clean coal (2007) 

In 1988 scientists had said a global 20% cut in emissions was needed by 2005. The UK government, on this day, said “yeah, nah”. 

March 13, 1989  – UK Energy Department shits all over everyone’s future by dissing Toronto Target

In Australia climate activists tried to get the Labor government to be less shit. They failed.

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).

Candidate Bush had made promises on the campaign trail. 25 years ago today Vice-President Bush, under President Cheney, broke those promises.

March 13, 2001 – Bush breaks election promise to regulate C02 emissions…

19 years ago, the unions (especially the coal-miners) were talking up “clean coal”, as was Labor leader Kevin Rudd. Happy times.

March 13, 2007 – ACTU talks up “clean coal”

Sixteen years ago, the United Nations Environment Program releases a report on the gap between the promises and what is happening/what is needed. They’re still producing these reports. The gap ain’t getting any smaller.

March 13, 2010 – first UNEP Emissions Gap report