Tag: 2006

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

August 8, 2006 – MIT Review on “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 8th, 2006. MIT Review has a story on, well, “Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean” calling it a “A safe, high-capacity method could make carbon sequestration more practical.” 

God forbid breathless technophilia ever infect people’s cognitive faculties…

One way to combat global climate change is to directly capture carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as it is being emitted, and store it safely. But methods of carbon dioxide sequestration, notably, pumping the gas into underground geologic structures such as exhausted oil reservoirs, are not practical in many areas, and raise fears that the stored carbon dioxide will escape.

A better way to store carbon dioxide: Pump it into the sea floor in liquid form. There,high pressure and cold temperatures make it more dense than water in the surrounding rock, preventing it from rising to the surface. (Source: Daniel Schrag. Artist: Jared T. Williams)

Now researchers at Harvard University and Columbia University have proposed a new method for trapping nearly limitless amounts of carbon dioxide – a technique they say will be secure, as well as a practical option for areas located far from underground reservoirs.

The researchers, in an article posted online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, propose that carbon dioxide be pumped into the porous sediment a few hundred meters into the sea floor in deep parts of the ocean (greater than 3,000 meters deep), in what one of the researchers, Dan Schrag, professor of geochemistry at Harvard, calls “a fairly simple, permanent solution.”

The key was finding a “sweet spot,” where the pressure and temperature of the surrounding environment make carbon dioxide more dense than surrounding fluids, thereby trapping it in place. This situation occurs at the bottom of the ocean because of a combination of high pressure and low temperatures – a fact others have also noted in proposals to store carbon dioxide in deep parts of the ocean.

Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean | MIT Technology Review

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 from the mid-1970s various scientists had been saying “well, look if carbon dioxide build-up is actually a problem, we will just bury it in/under the oceans. Simples.”

The specific context was that the carbon dioxide build-up issue was back on the agenda because the Kyoto Protocol had come into effect – despite US and Australian intransigence – in February 2005. This meant that there would be a successor deal, and the rich countries wanted to be able to say “tech will fix it” to dodge calls for emissions cuts by rich people.

What I think we can learn from this is that we believe what is convenient to believe, and disregard the rest (yes, that’s a Simon and Garfunkel hollaback).

What happened next – the CCS bandwagon lost a wheel in 2011 or so. This has since been duct-taped back on, at considerable expense to the taxpayer.

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 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

July 26, 2006 – Costello versus wind farms

Nineteen years ago, on this day, July 26th, 2006,

The same month, the Treasurer Peter Costello stated in a doorstop interview, ‘Well if you are asking me my view on wind farms, I think they are ugly, I wouldn’t want one in my street, I wouldn’t want one in my own back yard’

(Prest, 2007: 254)

Peter Costello, Press Conference 26 July 2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 hostility to renewable energy has a long history in Australia, dating back to the 1970s. Coal was king, and intended to stay that way.

The specific context was that John Howard, Prime Minister since 1996 had been busy trying to slow the growth of renewables, with considerable success, as per the leaked minutes of the “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” in 2004. 

What I think we can learn from this is that old white conservative men with brittle fragile egos and limited understanding of – well – everything – have delayed the “energy transition” to the point where it is impossible and everything is turning to very hot shit. Oh well.

What happened next – Costello didn’t “have the ticker” to challenge Howard for the top job. Renewables got some help under Labor of Rudd and Gillard, but nowhere near what was needed to push emissions down. 

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

Hudson, M. 2017 Wind Beneath Their Contempt. ERSS

Also on this day: 

July 26, 1967 – Allen Ginsberg tells Gary Snyder it’s “a general lemming situation”

July 26, 1977 – Australians warned about cities being flooded #CanberraTimes

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times…

Categories
United Kingdom

May 23, 2006 – David Attenborough finally comes out on climate

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 2006  David Attenborough was interviewed on Ten O’Clock news about his acceptance of climate science, ahead of the showing of a two part documentary.

Are We Changing Planet Earth? and Can We Save Planet Earth? are two programmes that form a documentary about global warming, presented by David Attenborough. They were first broadcast in the United Kingdom on 24 May and 1 June 2006 respectively.

Part of a themed season by the BBC entitled “Climate Chaos”, the programmes were produced in conjunction with the Discovery Channel and the Open University.

Are We Changing Planet Earth? – Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Attenborough had maintained a studied silence on the question of carbon dioxide build-up.  This had been spotted by the likes of George Monbiot – 

Since 1985, when I worked in the department that has made most of his programmes, I have pressed the BBC to reveal environmental realities, often with dismal results. In 1995 I spent several months with a producer, developing a novel and imaginative proposal for an environmental series. The producer returned from his meeting with the channel controller in a state of shock. “He just looked at the title and asked ‘Is this environment?’ I said yes. He said, ‘I’ve spent two years trying to get environment off this fucking channel. Why the fuck are you bringing me environment?’”

I later discovered that this response was typical. The controllers weren’t indifferent. They were actively hostile. If you ask me whether the BBC or ExxonMobil has done more to frustrate environmental action in this country, I would say the BBC. 

We all knew that only one person had the power to break this dam. For decades David Attenborough, a former channel controller widely seen as the living embodiment of the BBC, has been able to make any programme he wants. So where, we kept asking, was he? At last, in 2000, he presented an environmental series: State of the Planet.

It was an interesting and watchable series, but it left us with nowhere to go and nothing to do. Only in the last few seconds of the final episode was there a hint that structural forces might be at play: “Real success can only come if there’s a change in our societies, in our economics and in our politics.” But what change? What economics? What politics? He had given us no clues.

David Attenborough has betrayed the living world he loves | George Monbiot | The Guardian

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been so poorly served by the mass media. But then, the mass media is not there to raise the awareness of the masses, now, is it?

What happened next

In 2017 I killed off David Attenborough in this article.

As of May 2025 Attenborough, at 99, is still going.

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

Hudson, M. 2017. 2019: How we blew it again. Peace News, 

Monbiot, G. 2016. Rare Specimen – George Monbiot

Also on this day: 

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

May 23, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger – All Our Yesterdays

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

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

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2006,

Australia has the opportunity and responsibility to explore emissions-reduction technologies, writes Grant Thorne.

Thorne, G. (2006) Carbon capture the key to cutting greenhouse gases. The Australian Financial Review, March 17.

“Grant Thorne. Grant Thorne is managing director of Rio Tinto Coal Australia, a major Australian coal producer.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that over the previous couple of years, there had been increased talk about CCS in Australia – Coal 21 national plans and Zero Emissions conferences, especially in Queensland. And it was obvious –  or it seemed obvious – that there would be international negotiations to create a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. And so everyone was banging on about CCS. 

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s all just kayfabe. And also, even if they were serious and it worked perfectly, CCS would be a terrifyingly small proportion of overall emissions. And CCS is essentially a way of not talking about reducing energy throughputs in affluent/effluent societies. 

What happened next

By 2009/2010 reality had caught up with CCS in Australia, at least on that occasion. Since then, people have tried to paint Gorgon (given its approval by Labor Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett in 2009) as a success. It isn’t, except insofar as it enables some people not to talk about the need for energy reductions.

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

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

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

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

January 12, 2006 – the nuclear option, yet again

Nineteen years ago, on this day, January 12th, 2006,

 “NUCLEAR power will be examined as part of the solution to global warming when ministers from six countries meet this morning in Sydney for talks on climate change…”  

Peatling, S. 2006. Nuclear question looms large at climate change talks. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 January. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that everyone knows there’s going to have to be a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, even though (because) t was far too weak. And so the proponents of action are talking about a stronger emissions trading scheme with fewer loopholes. And the opponents are, of course, talking about “technology.” The Bush and Howard governments had been banging on and creating these entirely fake and stupid bodies that would allow world leaders to stand at a podium in front of a new logo and declare “hydrogen” or “nuclear” or “CCS” or some other nonsense instead of any actual emissions cuts, And this is further examples of that. 

What I think we can learn from this

Technology is always invoked as the get out of jail free card. Enough people find it convenient to believe, or easy enough to pretend to believe.  And the emissions keep climbing.

What happened next

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: 

Categories
Australia

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

Nineteen years ago, on this day, January 7th, 2006,

RISING food prices, increased bushfire risk and diminishing water supplies are some of the challenges Australia will face as the pace of global warming accelerates. The Bureau of Meteorology delivered its annual climate summary this week, showing that 2005 was Australia’s hottest year on record. The nation’s annual mean temperature for 2005 was 1.09C above the average, well above the previous record of 0.84C in 1998.

Anon. 2006. Dire warming warning; Dearer food, more bushfires, less water on way. Canberra Times 7 January.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Millennium Drought was still going on, and the impacts were piling up, The policy blocking from the Liberals and Nationals continuing, was continuing.

What I think we can learn from this is that there hasn’t really been any scientific debate or doubt about climate since, wow, you can, you can vary it, but the early 90s, maybe (I personally would say late 1970s).

And the messages have been clear enough, but the politicians have been able to do the bidding of the incumbent fossil fuel interests in ignoring these warnings. How so? Because they are not forced to take action that would upset their donors and, frankly, string pullers,Why?  Because there is no engaged enraged civil society. Bcause people have it drilled into them from an early age that they are to “stay in their lane,” that they are to do what their lords and masters tell them to do.

Btw, we will prioritize obedience and sycophancy, because these are rewarded and anything else is punished by the passively or actively, until we’re all dead. What happened next The Bureau of Meteorology has been on the receiving end of various accusations from the nut job denialists, of course. How could they not be? The Millennium drought broke in sort of 2010. A  carbon price, which was basically the smallest part of what an adequate response would look like, became politically impossible in Australia after 2012

Categories
Geoeingeering

 December 17, 2006 – Sulphur for reducing heat becomes canonical

Eighteen years ago, on this day, December 17th, 2006 ,

Scientist: Sulfur remedy for greenhouse effect backed by data

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Nobel Prize winner Professor Paul J. Crutzen has stated he has data to support his controversial claim that injecting sulfur into the atmosphere would negate the greenhouse effect.

The data is intended to quiet critics of the theory he first discussed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August, 2006.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Dutch Nobel Prize-winning physicist Paul Crutzen had ruffled feathers in August 2006 by suggesting that seeding clouds with sulphur in order to increase their reflectiveness might be necessary. Their albedo would be one way of dealing with an overheating planet. Of course, this comes with all sorts of questions about ethics and justice and politics. And, frankly, practicality, because that stuff is not going to stay there – it’s going to land as acid rain. There had been some back and forth about this already. I seem to recall George Monbiot writing a piece about it in the Grauniad.

What we learn is that geoengineering schemes have been around a long time. Solar Radiation Management is part of that. Personally, I prefer space mirrors, but what are you going to do? 

What happened next? The idea continues not to gain that much traction. I think there are frankly, insurmountable problems for it. And I think that’s why we’re pivoting towards equally fantastical schemes like Direct Air Capture. And Crutzen died in 2021.

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 17, 1973 – “Global warming will make nuclear war look like a fire cracker in your backyard.”

December 17, 1989 – a big #climate conference in Egypt begins…

December 17, 2008 – European Parliament says yes to funding CCS

Categories
Australia Denial Economics of mitigation

October 31, 2006 – Stern Review “pure speculation” according to John Howard

Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 31st, 2006, Australian Prime Minister John Howard dismisses the report on “The Economics of Climate Change” by former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern as “pure speculation”


,

Fraser, A. 2006. Greenhouse Report Pure Speculation, Says Howard. Canberra Times 1 November

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had just finally really woken up to climate change in September 2006. John Howard was beset on all sides and trying to fight back. At this point, he was probably still grumpy and resisting the idea of having to set up the Shergold Group Report. And so he took aim at the recently published Stern Review and called it pure speculation. 

What we learn is that a) people who are supposed to be responsible stewards of the future can be utter fools and that b) the species doesn’t know how to do concern about its own future. If it did, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Nothing in our cultural evolution in the West, at least the last 300 or 500 years or so has prepared us. And here we are. 

What happened next? Although Howard tried to do a pivot to save his skin it didn’t really convince anyone, probably not even himself. He got trolled by a senior ABC journalist on February 7. And he continued to sneer at Stern when Stern paid a flying visit in the first half of 2007. And of course, eventually, after leaving office, John Howard gave a talk to the Global Warming Policy Foundation or whatever it’s called that “one religion was enough.” 

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

October 31, 2018 – Extinction Rebellion makes its declaration of rebellion

Categories
United Kingdom

October 25, 2006 – David Cameron launches “Can I have the Bill?” campaign for a Climate Act

Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 25th, 2006, opposition leader David Cameron launches “Can I have the Bill” campaign in London, a few week’s ahead of the Queen’s speech in which the Labour Government announced its Climate Change Bill.

If you go here you can see the Getty images I don’t have a licence for.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that David Cameron had become Conservative Party opposition leader the previous year simply by memorising an eight minute speech and not being David Davis or Ken Clark. One of his key tactics was to “detoxify” the Conservative brand by embracing soft green environmentalism so middle class people wouldn’t be quite as repelled and would feel less guilty about voting the way that they thought would benefit their own economic self interest. And so he’d hugged a husky and so forth. And now, he was trying to outflank the Labour and Liberal Democrats on climate ambition. 

We’d seen this before with Chris Puplick and Andrew Peacock in 1989-90 in Australia.

What I think we can learn from this is that these periods of competitive consensus exist. They tend not to last terribly long though. 

What happened next Cameron kept banging on about CCS. He had a wind turbine put on his roof to precisely no effect. And in 2008, the Climate Change Act became law. And there was an up of ambition from 60% to 80% emissions reductions by 2050. And of course, we’ve now said that we’re going to go to net zero, except we’re not. 

The thing to remember was that very, very few Conservatives voted against the Climate Change Act. But this is because most of them are both obedient and thick and didn’t understand the implications. And even if they did understand the implications, loyalty to your leader is far more important than any particular stand you might want to make. 

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 25, 1980 – Australian radio’s The Science Show talks about climate change…

October 25, 1982 – Exxon and “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium

October 25, 2000 – James Hansen writes a letter

October 25, 2000 – local authorities in England make #climate promises. Well, that went well… #NottinghamDeclaration

Categories
Australia

 October 9, 2006 – “Australia Responds” report about climate aid and refugees released (Spoiler, Australia didn’t in fact respond).

On Monday October 9, 2006, a group of Australian charities and pressure groups, who’d been working with the CSIRO, released a report “Australia Responds: Helping Our Neighbours Fight Climate Change.” (download here if you like).

“

It called for lots of sensible things, including

  • Increase Australia’s overseas development assistance (ODA) in line with most other developed nations to 0.5% of GNI by 2009 10, and 0.7% by 2015.
  • Review Australia’s immigration program in light of the expected impacts of climate change. This review should consider mechanisms to support people displaced by climate change within the region. • Make a strong commitment to support disaster risk reduction, mitigation and preparedness measures within the ODA program.
  • Adopt a national framework for reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% of 1990 levels by 2050, with an implementation timetable that will provide a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

By the way, something else really important happened on the same day – Anthony Albanese made a statement on how Australia needed to take climate refugees. 

You can also read my Open Letter to a Tuvaluan turning 18.

And here is a fourth post (no, nobody has ever told me to shut my damn mouth – why do you ask) tying it together and suggesting some answers to the only question that matters “What is to be done?” It also has links to various organisations trying to help.

The context was the Australian government under Bob Hawke had made noises about accepting climate refugees.  Keating ignored the whole issue, and under him the “fuck the world, we’re gonna sell soooo much coal bwahahahaha” strategy got moving. John Howard dialed it up to eleven. Then 12. John Howard belongs in one particular place close to sea-level. That place is The Hague.

From Labour’s “Our Drowning Neighbours” discussion paper

What we learn is that 

NGOs can get scientists on board, and work their guts out and it will be a one-day wonder. A political party (especially in Opposition) will piggyback on the work.  And the media will very very quickly lose interest, for a variety of structural reasons.

And so it came to pass.

What happened next

The report generated a certain amount of attention. 

The ABC ran a show on it, fronted by Joe Gelonesi

The low lying nation of Kiribati is just one of our Pacific neighbours facing the real day to day effects of climate change.

Rising sea levels, huge tides and unpredictable winds are already a part of life there. So what do you do when climate change is literally on your doorstep?

Crikey covered it, from a national security angle.

Some newspapers probably did, IDK.

It wasn’t necessarily easy to find online back then, or recently.

Anyway, then the caravan moved on.  Peter Garrett, the next climate spokesman after Anthony Albanese, name-checked it in February 2007 at Labor’s little shindig at Parliament House.

But the whole question of accepting climate refugees in the future became, well, somewhat awkward under Julia Gillard. Then along came Tony “Stop the Boats” Abbott and that’s all she wrote.

What happened next more generally.

The NGOs kept NGOing.

Meanwhile

  • The coal exports kept rising.
  • This had consequences.
  • The bank balances of Very Important People kept rising.
  • The donations – official and unofficial – to parties and individuals –  kept rising.

Which was all great, obviously , and far more important than the fact that

  • The emissions kept rising.
  • The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide kept rising.
  • The seas kept rising.

The whole language of “climate refugees” became a bit awks for the Gillard Government, so was shelved.  Everyone moved on.

But the issue did not go away, and then – in November 2023…

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.

https://library.sprep.org/sites/default/files/349.pdf

Also on this day: 

October 9, 1979 – Hermann Flohn warns Irish of “possible consequences of a man-made warming”

October 9, 1991 – Greens get labeled religious fanatics, don’t like it.