Categories
CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter commentary

“It is not knowledge we lack. What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions.” Arwa Aburawa on the CO2 Newsletter…

Arwa Aburawa – photo by Edward Sogunro

Arwa Aburawa is a filmmaker whose work focuses on race, the environment, and the enduring legacies of colonialism.  www.arwaaburawa.co.uk

In his book ‘Exterminate All the Brutes’ (1), the writer Sven Lindqvist carefully and meticulously traces the European colonial legacy of extermination and genocide as he treks across North Africa. And yet, he starts the book with a simple quote: 

You already know enough. 

So do I. 

It is not knowledge we lack. 

What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions. 

As I look over the previous editions of the CO2 newsletter that Marc wants to explore and examine, I know his work is guided by one quest: to carefully and meticulously trace how long we’ve known about the carbon dioxide and global warming problem. 

And yet, we all know that the answer, sadly, is much too long. 

Kevin Anderson states that since the newsletter’s publication, “humanity has become extraordinarily adept at observing and quantifying the world it is reshaping. With increasing accuracy, we can measure, model, and project the climate system, supported by ever more sensitive instruments, richer datasets, and stronger scientific confidence. Yet this growing clarity has not led to restraint or correction.” Michiel van den Broeke, reflecting on an article on glacial melts in the third edition states that it was “remarkably accurate.” So all the newsletters reveal, in great detail, is how even back in the 1980s we knew enough. 

You did. And so did I. So it is not knowledge we lack. 

But courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions. 

What does it mean to understand what we know and draw conclusions in this context? 

It means to take action. To transform ourselves and our societies.

It’s to ask the same question the writers of this newsletter asked, to ask the same question Dr Abi Perrin asked, the same question that Marc’s work is ultimately shaped by: When should the studying stop and political action begin?(2)

The newsletter once again gives us another answer; long ago. 

And yet here we are. So once again we are forced to look for the courage to ask why we have failed to take action and draw conclusions about that too.

When Lindqvist asks himself to draw conclusions and confront a reality he already knew – the roots of European colonialism, white supremacy, and genocide – he asks himself to really know and understand his society. To understand what is at the heart of his world and what drives it.

We must find a way to do the same thing. To confront the murderous, genocidal, white supremacist society which continues to accept the horrendous consequences of the climate crisis. A society where billionaire elites fight information, fact and science not with countering information but with a steady stream of confusion and distraction to destabilize us and rob us of any real clarity of what we might do next.

Ruth Wilson Gilmore defined racism as a premature exposure to death(2). I think that its also a fitting definition for the climate crisis and global warming. Colonialism never went away. It is here with us right now. It’s mutated, evolved into the same world which has failed to act on the climate crisis, 

And so it’s time, once again, to look for that courage Lindqvist talked about, and draw conclusions. 

References

Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California by Ruth Wilson Gilmore

The End of the World is Never the End of Everything

Footnote

(1) A book Marc introduced me to many, many years ago now

(2) I think it’s rather telling that the first option mentioned in the newsletter as a course of action  for  Energy and environmental planners in the U.S. was to “Postpone the decision to halt the CO, buildup (inaction itself may be a form or action)”

Categories
Activism Canada

March 3,  2010 – protest about tar sands

Sixteen years ago, on this day, March 3rd, 2010, 

RBS bankrolling tar sands protest

March 3rd: Take action against RBC tar sands financing!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Canada has been looking at exploiting tar sands for a long time. Though they weren’t, largely, economically viable, however they became so for various reasons, technological advances, willingness to pollute the crap out of everything. And therefore protest movements sprung up to try and stop this insanity. There’s not much else to say.

And here is a google search…

Key Impacts on Oil Sands Development

  • Equalization of Tax Treatment: Before 1996, in-situ projects (which use wells) were treated differently than open-pit mines. The 1996 changes aligned them, allowing both to benefit from rapid capital write-offs, which encouraged the development of complex in-situ technologies like Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD).
  • Investment Surge: Combined with Alberta’s 1995 generic royalty regime (which featured a low 1% royalty until costs were recovered), the 1996 federal tax change helped trigger a 300% increase in capital investment in the oil sands after 1997.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=what+was+the+impact+on+oilsands+development+of+the+federal+CCA+change+in+1996+to+100%25+rate

The specific context was that we are dumb as a rock.  I am sure there is other specific context, but I can’t be bothered to look, and the key thing is that we are as dumb as a rock.

What I think we can learn from this is that our leaders chase the money and are wholly owned subsidiary Meat Puppets, for the most part. 

What happened next

The protest went ahead. In all probability A few skulls got cracked, a few cops got their jollies, got their rocks off. A few people got charged. Maybe some even got convicted, and 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: 

March 3, 1980 – International Workshop on the energy climate Interactions in Germany

March 3, 1990 –  “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

March 3, 1990 – The Science Show on the “backlash to Greenhouse warnings”

Categories
CO2 Newsletter Energy Germany

March 3, 1980 – Amory Lovins at a workshop in Germany

On this day, 46 years ago, energy guru Amory Lovins was at a workshop in Germany.


As per the wonderful CO2 Newsletter of William Barbat –

From ‘ Efficient Energy presented Futures’, by Amory B, Lovins, at the Workshop on Energy/Climate Interactions, Munster, FRG, March 3, 1980, and pending publication with the Proceedings (Energy/Climate Interactions, W. Bach, et al., editors) by Reidel (Dordrecht, Netherlands)

“The integrated burn of fossil fuel, and the associated risk of global climatic change, can be minimized by economically efficient energy policies based on very efficient energy use and rapid deployment of appropriate renewable energy sources. Such policies can stabilize the rate of burning fossil fuel and gradually, over a half-century or so, reduce it to approximately zero. Economically and technically sophisticated recent studies in many industrialized countries have shown that it is cheaper, faster, and easier to increase national energy productivity by severalfold than to increase energy supply. If such studies are taken as an existence proof, a worldwide Western European material standard of living for 8 X 10 people could be maintained with today’s rate of world energy use ( 8 TW) or less, even with un-changed life-styles in the developed countries and complete industrialization of the developing countries. At these cost-effective levels of energy productivity, virtually all long-term energy needs can be met by appropriate renewable sources that are already available and that are significantly cheaper, faster, and otherwise more attractive than competing power stations and synthetic-fuel plants. Only major efficiency improvements and, secondarily, appropriate renewable sources can substantially change the timing of, or reduce the risk of CO2 problems.”

-Abstract.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been thinking about the likely consequences of the build-up of carbon dioxide from the early 1950s, and measuring its rise accurately from 1958.

The specific context was that by the mid-1970s,that measuring was turning to awareness/alarm and the desire to do something before the shituation got completely out of hand. This workshop happened in the aftermath of the First World Climate Conference, which had failed to be a rallying point.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew.

What happened next  We failed to do anything before the shituation got completely out of hand.

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 3, 1980 – International Workshop on the energy climate Interactions in Germany

March 3, 1990 –  “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

March 3, 1990 – The Science Show on the “backlash to Greenhouse warnings”

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

“The only feasible method for halting the CO2 buildup soon… is nuclear power.” CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1, no.4

The fourth 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 potential temperature increases we could expect, taken from Wally Broecker’s pivotal August 1975 article in Science “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?“

There’s also an editorial, feedback from readers (including Congressman George Brown), excerpts from recent reports and a concluding article “What would be needed to bring the C02 buildup to a halt”

Barbat was convinced that only a very rapid and widescale roll-out of nuclear energy could help us avoid the worst. Barbat’s editorial begins

The only feasible method for halting the CO2 buildup soon – while still permitting large scale mechanization – would place nuclear energy in the dominant role. Whether civilization will be allowed to use nuclear energy on a sufficiently large scale depends on nuclear energy overcoming its military legacy and on an informed public being allowed to make energy decisions rather than socioeconomic lobbying groups.

The impetus for the scientific pursuit of nuclear energy early in this century was clearly the desire to find a substitute for the chemical energy of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, nuclear weapons were developed first because a succession of scientific breakthroughs happened to culminate in the discovery of the fission chain reaction on the eve of World War II.

Categories
United Kingdom

March 2, 1989 – Michael Buerk asks Thatcher if she’s a friend of the Earth

Thirty seven  years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1989,

‘Mrs Thatcher, looking back over your life,’ the BBC’s Michael Buerk asked, ‘are you really a  friend of the earth?’ The Greening of Mrs Thatcher, broadcast on 2 nd March 1989, BBC Two logo

BBC Two

First broadcast: Thu 2nd Mar 1989, 20:30 on BBC Two England

The Greening of Mrs Thatcher From No 10 Downing Street Mrs Thatcher talks to Michael Buerk.

Prime Minister for ten years, Mrs Thatcher and her Government’s environmental record hasn’t won her many bouquets. This weekend she hosts a major international conference on saving the ozone layer, when that record and her commitment will be on the line. She says that the Tories are the real ‘friends of the earth’, but is she genuinely committed or just chasing the Green vote?

Tonight she talks for the first time about her own attitude to the environment, and what her new initiatives could mean for Britain and the rest of the world. 

Research MARK FIELDER

Outside broadcast director IAN PAUL 

Producer AMANDA THEUNISSEN 

Editor PETER SALMON BBC Bristol

TV Interview for BBC1 Nature | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Thatcher had been briefed on carbon dioxide build up in 1979 by her Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashton, and had replied with an incredulous you want me to worry about the weather? This didn’t stop her using the possibility of a greenhouse effect to say nice things about nuclear power. Marc, if you haven’t already put the Tokyo and Venice G7 meetings on your search for list at National Archives, do so now and Thatcher had continued to largely ignore carbon dioxide build up as an issue, even though it was there in the 1987 Conservative Party manifesto. 

The specific context was that  thanks to nudges from people like Crispin Gickle in 1988 Thatcher had given a surprising speech at the Royal Society, and so kicked off concern about Carbon Dioxide build up. However, the green organisations had challenged her to do something meaningful, legislatively, and she had not been interviewed by Michael Burke on whether she was, quote, a friend of the earth. UNQUOTE, she said the following, x, y, z. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that people like Thatcher are were capable of doing what’s called a reverse ferret completely. U turning on their position. And that’s what happened in this case. 

What happened next she kept giving nice features about carbon dioxide build-up without ever pushing through any meaningful action by Her Majesty’s Government, and she was toppled in November 1990 shortly after giving another speech at the second world climate conference in Geneva. 

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 2, 1954 – UK newspaper readers get Greenhouse lesson from Ritchie-Calder 

March 2, 1956 – IGY oceanography meeting on “clearer understanding”

March 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
Australia International processes

March 1, 1989 – “Environment pact backed” by Australian government

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, March 1st, 1989,

Federal Cabinet is set to back calls for an international treaty to protect the environment, a move which could drastically alter the nation’s future pattern of trade and the development of its resources.

Australia would support an international treaty to guard against potentially dangerous shifts in the earth’s climate and atmosphere, under a submission expected to go before Cabinet’s structural adjustment committee today.

[The Hague]

Dunn, R. 1989. Environmental pact backed. Australian Financial Review, 1 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that Australia had been warned about climate change build up repeatedly by scientists, the CSIRO had been beavering away on it since the early 70s. There had been a secret report called Fossil Fuels and The Greenhouse Effect in, or done by the Office of National Assessments in 1981. There had been Barry Jones, Minister of Science, organising the Greenhouse Project between the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future. And the issue had exploded into public awareness. In ‘88 there had been the “greenhouse 88” conference, linked by satellite to 10 towns and cities in Australia, everyone was holding hands and saying, “We will deal with this problem.”

The specific context is that the idea of an international treaty to deal with climate was high on the agenda because the ozone problem had had an international treaty, and then protocols were underway, So there was a meeting at The Hague without the big beasts deliberately. I should look into why the Dutch called it. Anyway, Australia, under Bob Hawke, was going to take a positive and proactive role. 

What I think we can learn from this is that Australia, at the outset, was not what it is now. And this is in part because I think the business groups were caught on the back foot, as they often are at the beginning of a window of concern, and just assumed that it would all blow over – they weren’t pushing hard back. And so the pro action forces had kind of an open goal. 

What happened next is that business did indeed wake up, and the pushback against any meaningful climate policy kicked into gear in late 1989 early 1990. Perhaps business had thought that they didn’t need to do much because a Liberal government was coming back, and despite the fine words of people like Chris Puplick, a business friendly Liberal government could be relied on to prevent meaningful climate action. That’s just speculation on my part. 

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 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

March 1, 1970 – so many tribes, so few common interests – All Our Yesterdays

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
Italy Science Scientists World Meteorological Organisation

March 1, 1983 – WMO ICSU meeting of WCRP in Venice 

Forty three ago, on this day, March 1st, 1983, the scientists had been sciencing.

March 1 to 8 1983 WMO ICSU meeting of WCRP in venice 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had begun to really think hard about carbon dioxide build up as a problem in the late 60s. There had been a two or three week scientific meeting in the middle of 1971 about man’s impact on climate. By the mid 1970s, the World Meteorological Organisation was saying carbon dioxide was probably the problem. And in 1979 it had held the First World Climate Conference, which could – and should – have said, “carbon dioxide is the problem.” But for opposition from people like John Mason. 

The specific context was that by 1983 people were beginning to twig to this. There had been the Charney report and so forth, and various international efforts, a meeting with the ICSU as well. In a place like Venice! It would have been fun to be a fly on the wall. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the scientists were beavering away, as scientists do, and by the mid 1980s really, the verdict was in.

What happened next. The big, seminal moment, pivotal moment, according to people who know about these things, was Villach. Maybe Villach wasn’t quite so important scientifically, but it certainly was politically, and you can read about it here. LINK

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 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

March 1, 1970 – so many tribes, so few common interests – All Our Yesterdays

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
On This Day

On this Day: February 28 – Senate hearings (1984), Australian business lobby paralysed (2003), Rudd makes empty promises (2010)

By the mid 1980s regular hearings were being held by concerned politicians in Congress and Senate, as the science got more alarming and the Reagan Administration’s response continued to be predatory delay.

February 28, 1984 – Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect hearings

The peak big business group in Australia – the Business Council of Australia had a civil war between pro-action (renewables, bankers, carbon creditors) and anti (fossil fuel etc) factions. They fought each other to a standstill…

Feb 28, 2003- Australian business lobby switches from opposition to “no position” on Kyoto ratification #auspol

After the defeat of his wretched carbon pricing scheme and the catastrophe of Copenhagen, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promised not to walk away from climate change. Then did.

February 28, 2010 – Australian Prime Minister says won’t walk away from climate. (Then does, obvs.)

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
Science Scientists

February 27, 1953 – Gilbert Plass test-drives his presentation…

Seventy three years ago, on this day, February 27, 1953, Canadian scientist Gilbert Plass gives a presentation at Simon Newcomb Astronomical Society – 

Henry, F. 1953. Question of Eras, Tropical or Glacial. Baltimore Sun, March 1, p71

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in the late 19th century, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius had suggested that carbon dioxide buildup would eventually warm the planet. He didn’t think this was a bad thing, and he thought it would take 1000s of years or hundreds at least.

Arrhenius’ predictions had been challenged.

In 1938 a British steam engineer called Guy Callendar, had moved the dial a little bit, perhaps, and had said that the warming was indeed already happening. This was mostly ignored in the UK, but some Americans were getting interested.

The specific context was that so were Canadians. Gilbert Plass was originally Canadian, and he had been working on this, and was going to be speaking at the American Geophysical Union meeting in May.

And here he is, about two months beforehand, testing out his presentation on a smaller audience, a less scientifically robust one 

What I think we can learn from this is that Plass didn’t just turn up on the fourth of May cold. He had tested out his argument and his presentation beforehand, which I think is kind of interesting, but I would because I’m the guy who has discovered this, and as anyone knows, who rustles around a lot in archives, just because you found something, doesn’t mean it’s important or significant. There is not a one to one relationship between the amount of effort you’ve expended and the importance of what you found.

What happened next: Plass gave his speech at the AGU which went around the world. Plass released more scientific studies and also something in American Scientist and Scientific American in 1959. Pllass was there in 1963 at the Conservation Foundation’s meeting in New York, and that was about it for Plass. He went on to other things; he’d said what he had to say.  The emissions kept climbing. Concentrations kept climbing. You know, the rest…

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: 

February 27, 1988 – Canberra “Global Change” conference ends

February 27, 1989 – Barron’s “Climate of Fear” shame…

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

Feb 27, 2003 – the “FutureGen” farce begins…

Categories
Australia

February 26, 2016 – Australian Defence White Paper useless on climate

Ten years ago, on this day, February 26, 2016,

Former Chief of the Australian Defence Force Chris Barrie recently argued that ‘Australia’s defence force is lagging significantly behind its US and UK counterparts in preparing to deal with the challenges created by a changing climate.’

Maclellan, N. 2016. Defence White Paper fails on climate change. Lowy Interpreter, 26 February.

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/02/26/Defence-White-Paper-fails-on-climate-change.aspx

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian Defence and intelligence forces had had some sort of an eye on climate change since at least 1981 when the Office of National Assessments had produced a report which you can now read because I paid for it to be scanned and declassified.

The specific context was that by 2016 climate change was horrendously politicised, an exhausting and exhausted topic of debate. It had been almost exactly 10 years, sort of September 2006, since the issue had (re)burst onto the public scene, and John Howard had been forced into a kind of U turn.  What followed this was the carbon pricing wars of 2007 to 2011 and whatever you said about climate change, someone was gonna leap on you. So the best thing, the safest thing to do was make various anodyne, vague statements and kick the issue into the next poor bugger’s in-tray. And so it came to pass,

What I think we can learn from this is as per the 2004 Pentagon study, just because it’s the military doesn’t mean it’s intelligent, and in fact, the very concept of military intelligence might sometimes be considered a misnomer. 

What happened next: The issue hasn’t gone away. It never will. Everyone who’s alive will have climate change as the background noise getting louder and louder for the rest of their lives, however long that might be. 

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: 

Feb 26, 1981 – Science writer warns readers about the greenhouse in the Guardian….

February 26, 1988 – Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman warns of “Dramatic Warming”

 Feb 26, 1998 – Australian “clean coal” is on the way (again).

February 26, 2014 – Advanced Propaganda for Morons