Tag: 2004

Categories
United States of America

February 22, 2004 – secret Pentagon report predicts apocalypse by 2024

Twenty two years ago, on this day, February 22, 2004 a report in The Observer…

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that politicians had received warnings for a long long time.

The specific context was that the Bush administration’s denial of climate science was getting more and more pushback. Meanwhile, the Pentagon was trying to perhaps find other things to talk about besides the Iraq War, which wasn’t quite going how they planned. The war had gone how they planned, the occupation, not so much so. There had been various sorts of security studies of climate impacts. It’s fairly obvious that it would not just affect geopolitics, but the ability to fight; everything, how much water soldiers needed, and on and on and on.

What I think we can learn from this is that just because it’s a military study doesn’t mean it’s not horse shit. Because the authors are trying to get more money. That’s what the author of almost any report is trying to do; more money, more attention, jobs for their mates. That’s how all of these games are played. And so if you actually look at what the report predicted 20 years hence, i.e. now it has not come to pass. So we should always be careful that just because it’s in a secret report doesn’t mean it’s in any way accurate.  

What happened next: More reports. More inaction. More despair.

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 22, 1991 – Denialist gloating about influence on Bush

February 22, 2012 – “Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act” holds a meeting…

February 22, 2013 – Idiotic “Damage” astroturf attempted by miners

February 22, 2020 – CO2 pipeline accident – “Like something out of a zombie movie”

Categories
On This Day

On this Day: January 7th – Intersectionality, geoengineering, warnings and activism.

Fifty six years ago the activists at “Ecology Action East” were drawing the links and parallels. These days it would be smothered in the language of “climate justice” etc. But back then, they had simpler terms.

  January 7, 1970 – “Ecology Action East” is “intersectional”

Twenty two years ago today, scientists think we might be able to use our technology to avoid the worst. What could go wrong?

January 7, 2004 – geoengineering our way outa trouble?

Twenty years ago today, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, with a basic website, warn of trouble ahead.

January 7, 2006 – Bureau of Meteorology with another climate warning

Thirteen years ago today, an activist takes a chance.  (See interview here.)

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results  

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
United Kingdom

October 31, 2004 – QE2 lobbied Blair on climate, reports Observer

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 31st, 2004,

So it was extraordinary when London’s Observer reported, on October 31, 2004, that the Queen had “made a rare intervention in world politics” by telling Blair of “her grave concerns over the White House’s stance on global warming.” The Observer did not name its sources, but one of them subsequently spoke to Vanity Fair…. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/05/warming200605

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the monarchy, it likes us to believe, usually steers clear. But Brenda’s husband Philip had been talking about conservation for yonks, and had been aware of carbon dioxide buildup as a potential issue since 1970 at the latest. (LINK TO BP FILM ETC 

The specific context was the Cheney-Bush administration were being total assholes, and not even trying to hide it.

What I think we can learn from this – everybody knew. Even the “powerful” were basically powerless.

What happened next – business as usual. More emissions. More bullshit, in lockstep.

On Brenda? Well see this

Last year [2021], the queen was captured on video complaining about the UN COP climate conferences where, she said, “it’s really irritating when they talk, but they don’t do.”

Climate gets personal for the queen

At COP26 in Glasgow, the queen gave what many royal watchers say was the most personal and emotional speech of her reign when she opened the UN climate conference by reminding the gathering that her beloved Duke of Edinburgh had sounded the alarm on climate change well before it was even called that.

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 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

October 29, 2004 – the end is near says Kurt Vonnegut.

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2004, the inimitable Kurt Vonnegut is, well Kurt Vonnegut

The End is Near – In These Times

What was the beginning of this end? Some might say Adam and Eve and the apple of knowledge. I say it was Prometheus, a Titan, a son of gods, who in Greek myth stole fire from his parents and gave it to human beings. The gods were so mad they chained him naked to a rock with his back exposed, and had eagles eat his liver.

And it is now plain that the gods were right to do that. Our close cousins the gorillas and orangutans and chimps and gibbons have gotten along just fine all this time while eating raw vegetable matter, whereas we not only prepare hot meals, but have now all but destroyed this once salubrious planet as a life-support system in fewer than 200 years, mainly by making thermodynamic whoopee with fossil fuels.

The Englishman Michael Faraday built the first dynamo, capable of turning mechanical energy into electricity, only 173 years ago. The first oil well in the United States, now a dry hole, was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania, by Edwin L. Drake only 145 years ago. The German Karl Benz built the first automobile powered by an internal combustion engine only 119 years ago. 

The American Wright brothers, of course, built and flew the first airplane only 101 years ago. It was powered by gasoline. You want to talk about irresistible whoopee?

A booby trap.

Fossil fuels, so easily set alight! 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was Vonnegut had been an American POW in Dresden when it got the absolute living shit bombed out of it very near the end of the war (see Slaughterhouse Five).

He also wrote Cat’s Cradle, about Ice-9, which is an absolute MUST READ. All about an ecological catastrophe set off by man’s technological hubris

The specific context was it was 2004 – the Bush Administration remained resolute in its opposition ot all action that might slow the accelerating fucked-ness of the planet.

What I think we can learn from this. Vonnegut is worth your time.

What happened next Vonnegut died in 2007. Much missed.

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 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to help save planet. Does it? Of course it doesn’t.

Categories
Kyoto Protocol Russia

October 22, 2004 – Russian Duma votes for Kyoto ratification

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 22nd, 2004, 

Russian Duma votes in favour of ratification of Kyoto (Scorcher, page 95)

Just hot air, in every sense…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the original climate treaty, which became the UNFCCC, didn’t have targets and timetables for rich countries to reduce their emissions. This was not forgetfulness, this was the intransigence of the USA, whose President, George H.W. Bush, threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if the French didn’t take out the targets and timetables. The French did, and then it became a question of how to get some emissions reductions commitment into play. The “answer” was the Kyoto Protocol” – entirely inadequate from a scientific viewpoint, but “at least it’s a start” if you need to believe because you are a breeder, or part of your job description is to believe. But although a deal was created at Kyoto, in 2001 the Americans pulled out followed by one of their satellite states, Australia, the following year.

The specific context was that the Russians wanted in to the World Trade Organisation (this was in the days of cuddly Putin), and the tacit quid pro quo was they’d sign up to Kyoto (which wouldn’t affect them because their emissions had plummeted after the collapse of the Soviet Union) and everyone would be happy.

What I think we can learn from this – you gotta know the history, and you gotta understand that climate policy is a bauble compared to all the other stuff (you can make an argument that “climate policy” doesn’t actually exist, btw).

What happened next – Kyoto became international law early the next year because of Russia saying yes. Australia and the US set up an attempted spoiler/distraction outfit, but nobody took it seriously. There was to-ing and fro-ing- at the COPs, but eventually, in 2007 there was the “Road to Copenhagen” – where a successor to Kyoto would be agreed. Oh yes.

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 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

August 13, 2004 – “Stabilisation wedges”

Twenty one years ago today, Science publishes the “Stabilisation Wedges” paper…

*Steven Pacala and Robert Socolow, “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies,” Science 305, no. 5686 (August 13, 2004): 968-972,

“Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world’s energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration. Every element in this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale. Although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough that not every element has to be used.”

Ha ha, we are so fubarred.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the discussions of “what to do” had been going on for a long long time.  

The specific context was – the Bush administration had pulled out of Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Those wanting to “do something” were turning to technology. 

What I think we can learn from this – the numbers around mitigation were daunting then. Now they’re laughable.

What happened next. Stabilisation wedges were flavour of the month for a while. Now? Haven’t heard them referenced for ages. It’s apparently all about the speed of wind and solar roll-out.

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 13, 1882 – William “Coal Question” Jevons dies

August 13, 1991 – clouds and silver linings 

August 13, 2007 – Newsweek nails denialists

Categories
Geoeingeering

April 16, 2004 – Iron filings will save us all (actually, not). 

Twenty one  years ago, on this day, April 16th, 2004,  Science published a new study…

Effects of Ocean Fertilization with Iron To Remove Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere Reported

April 16, 2004

Dumping iron in the ocean is known to spur the growth of plankton that remove carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere, but a new study indicates iron fertilization may not be the quick fix to climate problems that some had hoped.

Scientists have quantified the transport of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean in response to fertilizing the ocean with iron, an essential nutrient for marine plants, or phytoplankton. Prior work suggested that in some ocean regions, marine phytoplankton grow faster with the addition of iron, thus taking up more carbon dioxide.   However, until now, no one has been able to accurately quantify how much of the carbon in these plants is removed to the deep ocean.

New data, reported in the April 16 issue of the journal Science, suggest that there is a direct link between iron fertilization and enhanced carbon flux and hence atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, but that the quantities that can be removed are no greater than natural plankton blooms and are not large enough to serve as a quick fix to our climate problems. https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/effects-of-ocean-fertilization-with-iron-to-remove-carbon-dioxide-from-the-atmosphere-reported/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the international process for “mitigation” was only slowly being repaired (all eyes on Paris, November 2015), so there was ongoing interest in these sorts of technofixes/drawdown schemes

What I think we can learn from this is we will dream up every unicorn technology we can to avoid confronting the trajectory we are on.

What happened next Paris saved the world. Everything is fine..

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: 

 April 16, 1980 – “a risk averse society might prefer nuclear power generation to fossil fuel burning”

April 16, 1980 – Melbourne Age reports “world ecology endangered”

April 16 2006 – Ian Macfarlane says renewable support schemes are “Mickey Mouse”

April 16, 2008 – Aussie trades unions, greenies, companies tried to get CCS ‘moving.’

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

February 21, 2004 – “Turning coal clean and green.” Sure. Any day now.

Twenty one years ago, on this day, February 22nd, 2004, we were promised clean coal…

JUDGING by the heavy hitters attending a conference on the Gold Coast this week, geosequestration is about to get a substantial workover in Australia in the next few years.

Geosequestration is the capture of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and placing them underground. To some environmentalists the concept is about as popular as toxic waste.

For Australia’s biggest export industry, coal, geosequestration may be the difference between death and survival.

Wilson, N. 2004 Turning coal clean and green. The Australian, February 21.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that interest in technological solutions to climate change –  solutions is doing a lot of work in that sentence –  were being promulgated especially by the Australians and Americans because they had not signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. The Australian coal industry was going along with the fantasy of “clean coal” – , at least rhetorically, but not putting any of their own money where their mouths were. They have the skills to deal with digging stuff up, solids and moving it from place to place. CCS is all about pipes and valves and so forth. I mean that you can overstate this. The coal industry does have some experience with these sorts of things, but not enough. 

Also, the sums of money involved in making CCS “work” are staggering.

What I think we can learn from this is that people have been wittering about CCS loudly in public for a very long time. And we don’t have any CCS worthy of the name. 

What happened next

The CCS bubble in Australia burst in 2010. Chevron did its ridiculous Gorgon plant, (signed off by one P. Garrett, then Federal Environment Minister) which has never met its promises. However, CCS is now currently having another “moment.” 

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

Categories
Australia

December 27, 2004 – ACF boss says “cough up”

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 27th, 2004,

How do we make people more aware of the accelerating problems of climate change? The Australian Conservation Foundation’s new president says we must make them pay for their damage – literally

Clarke, D. (2004) NEW CONSERVATION CHIEF Climate controller The Advertiser 27th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Federal government had once again said no to an emissions trading scheme. And the states we’re talking about bottom up. Meanwhile, the Australian Conservation Foundation, which had been banging on about how a carbon tax would be a Good Idea for 15 years, had a new president. And although the times were inauspicious Howard had been given another three years, you always have to propose your ideas even if they’re seemingly out of time and unpopular.

What happened next various other business groupings surfaced, trying to talk about climate and carbon pricing. The most consequential of these probably was the April 2006 effort with Westpac and so forth. And then, of course, when Kevin Rudd came along, carbon pricing took off. 

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: 

December 27, 1989 – Greenhouse effect = “socialist hokum”

December 27, 2009 – Art exhibition in Copenhagen saves the world

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 9th, 2004, Real Climate is launched..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that denial of climate change and spurious science to back it up was still a major thing. And this was before social media, before it was very easy for scientists to explain what they were doing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it, and so forth. Real Climate was a real boon to a lot of people who wanted to keep up with what was going on, and to refute the latest denialist talking points.

What we learn is that good scientists have been willing to spend precious time explaining the facts and the theories and the observations and where the facts, theories and observations might not necessarily mesh. And this has, perhaps over time, reduced the confusion. in some people’s minds, maybe. Of course, the simple fact is that a lot of people are choosing not to understand, because if they did understand, it would be pretty bad for their egos and their worldviews. Ignorance is bliss. Alethophobia is a thing. 

What happened next Real Climate still going 20 years later. It’s a solid performance and a solid achievement. 

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: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment