Tag: 2002

Categories
Canada Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom United States of America

October 27, 2002 – International CCS study tour begins

Twenty two years ago, on this day, October 27th, 2002, some people fly off to the US and Canada.

Report of DTI International Technology Service Mission to the USA and Canada from 27th October to 7th November 2002

Carbon dioxide capture and storage : report of DTI International technology Service Mission to the USA and Canada from 27th October to 7th November 2002 / Advanced Power Generation Technology Forum ; Mission leader Nick Otter.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that CCS had been climbing the agenda for a few years, especially since it looked like the political negotiations around the Kyoto process were going nowhere. So you know, maybe throw your eggs in the technology basket and there were always these opportunities for nice conferences and PowerPoint slides and fun dinners and schmoozing. So it goes.

What we learn is that there’s always a new technology that’s going to save us. And that those technologies need “selling.”

What happened next, CCS started climbing in the popularity stakes. The Americans were throwing money at it with FutureGen. And then, years later, the Europeans and the Brits said that they were going to throw money at it. And here we are 23 years later. And how much C02 was actually being saved? Or stored? 

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 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

Categories
South Paciific

August 19, 2002 – Pacific Islands make unreasonable demands about continuing to live

Twenty two years ago, on this day, August 19th, 2002,

Pacific Islands: Climate Change, Radiation Concern Leaders

Government leaders of 16 Pacific Island nations expressed “deep concerns” about the adverse impacts of climate change, climate variability and sea level rise as the 33rd Pacific Islands Forum closed in Suva on Saturday. Many of these small and low lying island nations are already experiencing extreme hardship.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George W. Bush (aka Dick Cheney’s glove puppet) had pulled out of Kyoto Protocol negotiations the previous year, Australian Prime Minister John Howard had pulled out of Kyoto two months earlier. There was loose talk about technology, which didn’t really convince the South Pacific Island folks, who knew that they were screwed. And they still know that they’re screwed. 

What we learn is that we just white people just don’t care. Because it’s not going to happen to them, (they think) so screw everyone else. 

What happened next, Howard kept bullshitting. In 2006, the ALP used Pacific islands as a prop with their “Our Drowning Neighbours” report. That’s probably a bit unfair to the sincere people who pushed it on the agenda. But there you are – life is full of unfair…

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: 

August 19, 1968 – Is Man Spoiling the Weather? (yes)

August 19 1997 – “The denialists take Canberra” with “Countdown to Kyoto” conference

Categories
Austria Carbon Capture and Storage

June 20, 2002 – BECCS is billed as a “real option” by IIASA

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, June 20th, 2002, the fantasies of BECCS beckon…,

20 June 2002 – IIASA report – Biomass Energy, Carbon Removal and Permanent Sequestration ― A ‘Real Option’ for Managing Climate Risk https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/6743/1/IR-02-042.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was talking about carbon capture and storage. And its cousins. Direct Air Capture and BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage found their start this early date, at least conceptually. And, of course, it was our old friends at IIASA who posted this. They never met a geoengineering technological fix that they didn’t approve of. That’s who these people are, for better or for worse. Can’t blame them for being what they are. 

What we learn is that technocrats gonna technocrat, to channel Ms Swift.

What happened next? There’ll be another almost 15 years before BECCS started being taken really seriously. And that was in the aftermath of the Paris Agreement where the warning bell was ringing ever louder. And rather than reach for fundamental social transformation, which they don’t know how to do, and would force them to admit that the last 35 years had been worse than useless and wasted, they double down on the techno, because they can do no other. 

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: 

June 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax 

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House

June 20, 2000 – Australian business writes the rules.

Categories
United Kingdom

June 2, 2002 – Low carbon spaces, eh… SDC RIP

Twenty two years ago, on this day, June 2nd, 2002, a now-defunct State body tried to get people interested in “low carbon spaces.”

UK publication by Sustainable Development Commission, 2nd June 2002 Low carbon spaces: area-based carbon emission reduction – a scoping study

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was scratching their heads and thinking about carbon dioxide build up and by this time,alongside the RCEP there’s another group…

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s pivotal Energy and Climate Change report had come out in 2000. President Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. The Regional Development Association agencies were doing their thing. And so, of course, the Sustainable Development Commission set up by Blair, would be talking about what counts as a low carbon place. So we’re well aware of all this.

What we learn is this language of specificity of places for low carbon goes back a long way. 

What happened next? Lots of nice glossy reports got produced, Blair went nuclear. The Sustainable Development mission went south in the bonfire of the quangos in mid 2010, thanks to Dave “Greenest Government Ever” Cameron.

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: 

June 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

Categories
Business Responses Denial United States of America

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2002, a major automaker decided to leave the denialist/predatory delay outfit the Global Climate Coalition.

DETROIT — Environmentalists are claiming victory following General Motors Corp.’s decision to quit a lobbying group that has led the opposition to a 1997 global warming treaty reached in Kyoto, Japan.

Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler Corp. withdrew earlier.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article/usa-general-motors-quits-global-warming-lobby-group

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that almost everything the Global Climate Coalition had fought for, had been won – a weakened initial treaty followed by the avoidance of any domestic carbon tax followed by the avoidance of the US being involved in Kyoto (beforehand by the Byrd-Hagel resolution, and then afterwards in March 2001, by George Dubya Bush‘s announcement of pulling out of Kyoto in contradiction of his election promise to regulate CO2.) 

What we learn from this is that culture wars can get out of hand. The Global Climate Coalition had done some things that were reputationally risky and dubious. And you often see corporations which have to worry a lot about their reputation with customers getting nervous when the gloves come off, and lobbying becomes a vicious public bloodsport. It is not because they are in any way “woke” – it’s just that they worry that they won’t be able to flog their product as easily if they are regarded as assholes by customers. 

What happened next is very shortly after this, thanks to other outfits leaving, I think Ford, and so forth, the Global Climate Coalition basically dissolved itself, declaring “mission accomplished.” 

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

Categories
Australia

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch.

Twenty two years ago, on this day, March 6th, 2002, some Australian “economists” think George Dubya Bush is smart and competent.

Reducing greenhouse emissions to levels required in the Kyoto Protocol would lift unemployment and energy prices, according to new research by Australia’s chief rural and resources forecaster.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics said the US approach to reducing world greenhouse emissions offered a more realistic chance of reducing the possibility of significant climate change.

Executive director Dr Brian Fisher said the US approach offered “a potential avenue for bringing global developing countries into the abatement effort, while still facilitating their economic growth”.

He said there was little value in Australia ratifying the United Nations treaty on reducing worldwide greenhouse emissions without the United States and developing nations.

Dr Fisher’s remarks follow the first modelling conducted by the Government’s main economic think-tank since the last meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Morocco in November which finalised most treaty rules.

“The consequences of Australia ratifying the Kyoto Protocol are a significant structural adjustment to the Australian economy with a severe regional impact on jobs and on several major industries,” Dr Fisher said.

In a paper to be presented today to ABARE’s annual Outlook conference, Dr Fisher said domestic electricity prices would rise by between 37 per cent and 50 per cent by 2010 and 2015 on current projections and Australia would incur a 1 per cent loss in gross national product by 2015.

Koutsoukis, J. 2002. ABARE backs US on emissions. The Australian Financial Review, 6 March, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374.3.ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol process the year before. Bush was spouting all sorts of bullshit about the costs of doing anything about climate change and how wonderful CCS and hydrogen would be. And this was an opportunity for sycophants at ABARE to lend their important support. 

What I think we can learn from this is that lickspittle is a really powerful word. 

What happened next

Well Bush continued to be a douche. ABARE continued to be douchey. No social movements worthy of the name ever emerged. And the emissions kept climbing. And, 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:

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”

Categories
Denial International processes United States of America

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 16, 2002, The Times Newspaper reports

Conservative lobbyists in the US funded by Esso have urged President Bush to derail the Earth summit in Johannesburg because it is anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western.

Browne, A. 2002. USA: Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit ,The Times, August 16

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 


The context was it was 10 years since Rio and the United Nations does like a good round number conference. George Dubya Bush had recently been doing some talk about “clean skies” and technology, this and that. 

And the anti Climate Lobby groups just wanted to make sure that he didn’t slip. So this was laying down some “suppressing fire” and to force proponents of action to expend energy in simply keeping climate change (literally) ‘on the agenda.’ 

What I think we can learn from this

What’s interesting, what we can learn is, this is what they do. They’re constantly laying down “suppressing fire”, which didn’t really work as well as they’d hoped. But it makes you feel good when you do it, keeps you in a job, makes you test your ammo, and your guns, so why not? I can say the language is extraordinary, but nothing special. They do genuinely frame it as liberty and freedom and democracy versus the evil globalist at least for public consumption. 

What happened next

Climate stayed on the agenda. Bush stayed a prick. The carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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.

Categories
Academia Activism Australia

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 14, 2002, Aussie economists tried to get the smallest, most inadequate action taken…

“In a further response to what many see as Australia’s failure on the environment, more than 270 of the country’s academic economists called on 14 August [2002] for Prime Minister John Howard to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without delay. Howard rejected the Kyoto Protocol in June this year, stating that it would not be in the country’s interest to ratify without the inclusion of the US and developing nations. This is despite the fact that a recent survey of Australian citizens revealed that 71% believe it would be in the country’s interest to ratify.

“As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it serious environmental, economic and social risks and that preventive steps are justified,” says a statement by the economists. “Policy options are available that would slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia, and these may in fact improve productivity in the long term.”

However, Environment and Heritage Minister Dr David Kemp, told journalists on 19 August that Australia intends to keep to the targets laid out in the Kyoto Protocol, despite the fact that the country will not ratify.”

http://www.edie.net/news/16/Australias-environment-is-in-reverse/5878/

Excerpt from report by Radio Australia on 14 August

The Australian government is under further pressure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in the lead-up to the World Environment Summit in Johannesburg later this month. Samantha Hawley reports:

[Hawley] More than 250 economists have sent a message to the federal government, urging it to sign up to the protocol before the Johannesburg summit begins. Clive Hamilton, from the policy think tank, the Australia Institute, says the economists believe it will increase jobs and living standards.

[Hamilton] It really does throw the question to the prime minister on what basis is he making these claims on the economic cost ofKyoto. [End of recording]

[Passage omitted]

[Hawley] The call comes as the government moves to release its long-awaited greenhouse gas abatement figures tomorrow, which were originally due out before the election.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had, on Earth Day (June 5) announced he would not send the Kyoto Protocol for ratification through the Australian parliament. Clive Hamilton/Australia Institute got 270 economists together to do an open letter.

What I think we can learn from this

This is the sort of thing you have to do to raise the cost of bad behaviour, show that other people see the world differently. It didn’t work, but that’s not the fault of the people who tried it.

What happened next

Howard continued to be an asshat. Knocked down an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2003.

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.

Categories
Antarctica

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

Twenty one years ago, on this day, January 31, 2002, things began to fall apart.

31 January 2002–7 March 2002- the Larsen B sector collapsed and broke up, 3,250 km² of ice 220 m thick, covering an area comparable to the US state of Rhode Island, disintegrated and collapsed in one season.[6] Larsen B was stable for up to 12,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last glacial period, according to Queen’s University researchers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was folks had been talking about the impacts of greenhouse gas build-up on the Antarctic for a looooong time (try January 25, 1978)

What I think we can learn from this

Humans ignore warnings, especially if paying attention would be inconvenient to powerful people who have the ability to ‘help’ everyone else ignore those warnings.  Profound observation, I know – it’s what you have spent all month enjoying, no?

What happened next

It helped the film-makers who gave us “The Day After Tomorrow”(2004)  with their opening scene 

In 2005 British Sea Power’s album Open Season included a song called “Oh Larsen B”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HN0rqVJT4U

You had twelve thousand years and now it’s all over

Five hundred billion tonnes of the purest pack ice and snow

Oh Larsen B , oh won’t you fall on me?

Oh Larsen B , desalinate the barren sea

Oh I think it’s the start of the end

Like saw blades through the air

Your winter overture

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

December 16, 2002 – another knee-capping for renewable energy in Australia…

On this day, December 16 in 2002, the knee-capping of energy that isn’t fossil-based continued

“The director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, Frank Reid, says the organisation may have to abandon plans for a $60 million renewables venture capital fund if the Federal Government goes ahead with its decision to withdraw financial support from the organisation.”

Myer, R. (2002) Business – Energy research loses pivotal funding The Age 16th December

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 373ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

John Howard had won the 2001 election and set about further undermining renewable energy. The historical hatred of renewables among policy elites in Australia is fascinating – one speculation on it, by a devastatingly brilliant and handsome academic – is here.

Why this matters

If we had taken this seriously when the warnings started coming through, we would have

  1. Knocked the whole “consumption for consumptiton’s sake/as a replacement for meaning” thing on the head
  2. Done something about serious energy efficiency
  3. Done something about accelerating the research, development and deployment of renewables.

“We” (rich technocrats, mostly white, mostly male) didn’t think it mattered.  We thought our technology would save that subset of the species we call “us”.

What happened next?

Howard kept killing off renewables, every chance he got. Renewables have finally taken hold, but a) the delay, oh my the delay and b) they are additional to other energy demand, rather  than replacing it. We’re so toast.