Tag: 2004

Categories
Scientists technosalvationism United Kingdom

January 7, 2004 – geoengineering our way outa trouble?

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 7th, 2004,

Big ideas for reducing the impacts of climate change are being evaluated by an international line-up of leading scientists from the US, mainland Europe and the UK at a symposium in Cambridge this week. The meeting is being jointly hosted by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Cambridge-MIT Institute. The scientists are coming together to evaluate which large-scale bio-engineering, geo-engineering and chemical engineering ideas to combat global warming are worthy of further investigation, and which are best left on the drawing board. The symposium, called “Macro-engineering options for climate change management and mitigation” is at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge from 7-9 January.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/planet-sized-solutions-for-global-warming

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC Third Assessment Report had come out and the UK energy white paper had come out in February 2003 positing a 60% cut in emissions by 2050, and it was obvious that some big technological efforts were going to be required. The international negotiations were adrift with the Americans having pulled out of Kyoto, followed by the Australians. The IPCC was in the midst of writing its special report on CCS. So of course, a bunch of well-respected, high-powered, academics would get together and … spit ball about technological fantasies to save the world. 

What we can learn from this is that to really understand what’s going on, you do have to understand the context of what had gone before. And place yourself in the heads of organisers or speakers, without giving yourself information that they couldn’t have had, because the events hadn’t happened yet. 

What else can we can learn is that rather than criticise existing political and social arrangements, high-powered academics who are ultimately benefiting from existing social and political arrangements will dream up techno-fantasies, because to question the entire system would be to question their place in it, and no one gets career points for that. 

What happened next? The techno-fantasies started coming thicker and faster, and they’re with us now, 20 years later in full flight. Because we did nowt, boys and girls, about dealing with the social and political issues. 

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: 

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

Jan 7, 2013

Categories
Australia

December 16, 2004 – “2 degrees of warming to be a catastrophe”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, December 16, 2004, we got another warning.

SCIENTISTS have warned of the catastrophic consequences of a 2C rise in global temperatures.

They say it could threaten Latin American water supplies, cut food yields in Asia and lead to a rise in extreme weather in the Caribbean.

The warnings were issued in a report led by a group of European scientists and presented at a UN conference on climate change. It was released as delegates from almost 200 nations refined details of the Kyoto Protocol, a global warming treaty, to be implemented in February.

Hobart Mercury (2004) Just 2C could ruin us Hobart Mercury 16th December

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the 2000s scientists became more certain and more desperate about the impacts of a rapidly warming world. And some newspapers would pick up on this periodically, although the Hobart Mercury is part of Murdoch’s stable, it for whatever reason had always had slightly more independence (being, I think, the only Murdoch paper that did not support the Iraq War).

What I think we can learn from this

We have known exactly what was coming for us, and we have not acted. Of course unpacking that “we” is crucial. It mostly means our lords and masters…

What happened next

We did not act on this warning and all the other warnings that have come since. There is also such a thing as “too late.”

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
Australia

October 29, 2004 – Aussie environmentalists win a court case…

Nineteen years ago, on this day, October 29, 2004, activists in Victoria won a legal battle about a filthy coal-fired power station.

Justice Stuart Morris delivered his judgement to a packed courtroom on 29 October 2004, ruling squarely in favour of the environmentalists. On one level, the decision is a straightforward administrative law judgment about a Minister overreaching her statutory powers. Yet in reaching the conclusion on this procedural point, Justice Morris had occasion to consider for the first time under Australian law the relevance of indirect greenhouse gas emissions of a major development.

(Berger, 2007: 166)

Quinn saved his most vicious attack for the environment movement. In an internal note to Hazelwood employees issued on the day of the decision [29 October 2004]

Extreme environmental groups who are hell bent on closing our industry obviously have a right to a say in our democracy, but these delaying tactics by such lobbying groups should never be allowed to frustrate legitimate critically important state energy projects… We have spent over $400 million on environmental and operational efficiencies since 1996, and it is about time that commitment was recognised by these groups. Their views are anti-coal, anti-business and anti-jobs, and if they succeed, they will cost thousands of local jobs with their narrow and simplistic arguments.

(Berger, 2007: 167)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that pro-life pro-sanity campaigners had been doing legal stuff around trying to get Hazelwood shut down. For yonks. There was a court case and they won. In the short term, at least. 

What I think we can learn from this

The legal venues are one way forward, but by no means the only one. And any legal victory is only worth what happens next. (This is something that I first encountered as an idea while paying attention to the McLibel Trial and having this pointed out to me by Dave Morris.)

“They make the laws to chain as well.” 

“I fought the law and the law won. “

“This isn’t a Court of Justice son. This is a court of law. “

Ah the songs.

What happened next

Greenpeace started to do direct action around Hazelwood in 2005.

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
Australia

December 28, 1994 – Australian Financial Review says “say yes to Tradeable Emissions Quotas”

On this day, December 28 in 1994 the Australian Financial Review (“the Fin” – and on its best days merely a poundstore version of the Financial Times) had an editorial about the value of emissions trading schemes.

A very large part of the contribution of rich, energy-intensive economies such as Australia should be the financing of emission-reduction projects in countries where the social cost of emission reduction is lower.

One mechanism for this kind of transfer is the often proposed system of tradable emission quotas (which the quotas distributed in a way to transfer income to the developing nations).”

Anon, 1994, 28 December

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 359ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The Labor Federal Environment Minister John Faulkner was trying to get a carbon tax proposal through into the next budget. There was a major effort to stop this, and the Fin’s editorial was a minor part of it (“look, there’s a more efficient way of pricing carbon”).

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, in the big picture. Just be aware that whatever you propose, if the rich and powerful don’t like it they will either oppose it outright or – more subtle version – go for a concern troll approach “we both want the same thing, but HERE’s how you should do it…[proposes something that will never work].”

What happened next?

The carbon tax died in February 1995, didn’t get in the budget. Emissions trading became flavour of the month for more than a decade.  Delivered nowt, except fat fees to consultants and bankers. (You can argue about the reduction in emissions after Gillard’s scheme came in, and others will point to Tasmanian hydro entering the picture.)