The emissions kept climbing and the predictions came closer. Some of them have arrived. Others, well, they’re pending.
References/further reading
Black, M. (2017). Environmental Deadpan: New Scales and Sensations of Ecological Fallout. American Quarterly69(2), 397-409. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aq.2017.0033.
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.
A £14 million fund to help businesses develop new products and technologies to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy security and reduce costs was announced by Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Vince Cable.
The fund will encourage companies to invest in technologies which help to meet our future energy needs in a more environmentally friendly way, while at the same time boosting economic growth.
In a separate competition, Innovate UK are also making £5 million available to increase research and development and fund feasibility studies to reduce the environmental impact of extracting and using fossil fuels. It will help develop innovative technologies to take advantage of the changing energy landscape and make £1 million specifically available for feasibility studies led by small businesses.
Business Secretary Vince Cable said;
We are facing a trilemma. As well as reducing emissions and improving energy security, we need to reduce costs for energy users. Governments have their role to play, but we also need there to be investment by businesses in innovation to develop new products and technologies.
We are making £14 million available to encourage that investment and make sure that British companies have help to tackle this challenge.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Liberal Democrats had chosen to go into a coalition government with fucking Tories. Because Nick Clegg was a Tory on everything but Europe. And they quite liked the idea of limousines and red ministerial boxes. And here’s Vince Cable banging on about the energy trilemma. The context being that David Cameron had already decided to “cut all the green crap.” And there were the typical Treasury tussles over funding on anything that couldn’t pay for itself within five minutes.
What we learn is that smart people are understandably seduced by power because they want to make their mark, get something done, change the system from within, etc.
What happened next? The Tories since 2015 have been governing in their own right, thanks to the infinite wisdom of the British electorate, and everything has turned to shit. Literally, in the case of rivers, the state is being looted, and the earth is being assaulted. And the young can be grateful that catastrophic climate change is going to mean that they don’t have to spend 70-80 years enduring this.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that despite FutureGen having failed, people were still banging on about CCS as The Way Forward. And were willing to put vast sums of taxpayers’ money where their mouths were…
What we learn is that not all pilot projects work. CCS advocates are remarkably schtum about Petra Nova, Boundary Dam and Gorgon. Instead they bleat on about Sleipner Field…
What happened next? Boundary Dam really hasn’t worked.
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.
While US President Barack Obama told the UN Climate Summit [23 Sept 2014] that climate change will “define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other”, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop (replacing Tony Abbott, who did not attend) surmised the Australian position to “striking the responsible balance of safeguarding economic growth while taking action on climate change.”
Limbrick, 2014
And this was the event where Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, channelling his inner John Howard, did not attend, even though in New York the following day –
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Obama could afford to give all the soaring speeches because he wasn’t going to be up for re-election. And it’s his strong suit, isn’t it – soaring speeches. Legislating, not quite so much. Paris was coming. And soaring speeches make your followers feel good, don’t they? So everyone’s happy.
What we learn is that we are easily seduced by wonderful rhetoric from people who we can praise and then pat ourselves on the back for not being racist. Pro tip, not being racist is a little bit more complicated than very occasionally voting for a black person.
What happened next? Obama made all the money. Paris happened, 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.
Can you believe this stuff? Plenty of people can, because they need to…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Paris COP – the one that everyone was building as “putting it all back together, (again)” was coming up. And therefore, you get all sorts of business groups trying to gee themselves up and provide cover for the danger of potential regulation. So alongside “We Mean Business”, you’ve got the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, for example.
What we learn is that when there’s a “big event” coming up, you get all sorts of proactive or should I say pre-emptive efforts by business to create bodies that sound cool, and will be quote-worthy, so that journalists who are having to report on potentially-dangerous-to-their-career-stuff have some both-sides-isms quotes tht they can chuck in, for “balance”. You want a for instance? Well like the inability of capitalism to cope with the shit that it is causing. The journos can get a React Quote from some nice-sounding business lobby, rather than just have to state the bare facts that we are doomed and the people doing the dooming don’t give a shit.
It’s also useful for junior policy wonks and rightwing politicians – they can point to these outfits and say soothingly (if only to themselves!) “the system responds.”
What happened next? We Mean Businesses is still going. I think it’s sponsoring various news services to build a cuddly name for itself (quite a clever thing to do, btw).
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, July 31st, 2014, an Australian eco-group got its reputation burned.
2014 Planet Ark on the receiving end of criticism about its tie-in with forestry outfit –
The founders of environment group Planet Ark are speaking out about the charity they say has lost its way.
Environmentalist Jon Dee and tennis great Pat Cash founded Planet Ark 20 years ago.
It soon forged a high profile, thanks in part to the backing of celebrities like Olivia Newton John, Kylie Minogue and Pierce Brosnan.
But times have been tough for Planet Ark lately.
It has made substantial losses for three years running, sold some major assets and offered redundancies to staff.
After National Tree Day at the weekend, Mr Dee and Mr Cash have told 7.30 they are particularly upset about Planet Ark’s links with the timber industry.
Planet Ark has allowed its logo to be used on advertisements for timber, paid for by Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA).
It is part of a sponsorship deal in which Planet Ark gets $700,000 from the timber industry [continues]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Australian outfit Planet Ark had been going since 1992 (and set up its website in 1996). And they, like any NGO, needed money, and the people with the money said they didn’t want anything in return, but there’s always strings attached.
What we learn. It suits the needs of organisations with environmental reputations that need a bit of polishing to partner with outfits that have some sort of credibility And so it comes to pass. This tension plays out again and again. Because it’s a market for reputation. There are buyers and sellers.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, July 17th, 2014, a not so cunning stunt in Parliament… with someone cosplaying a Worker to support the substance that will (checks notes) kill all the workers, the non-workers and pretty much everything else except some sulphur-based life-forms in deep oceanic vents.
“Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald wearing the vest to show his support for the repeal of the mining tax, which passed the Senate with amendments and is returning to the House of Representatives for another vote. The vest, emblazoned with “australiansforcoal.com.au” and Macdonald’s name, was kindly provided to Macdonald by the Minerals Council of Australia” (Mackinnon, 2014)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the opponents of climate action were feeling particularly pleased with themselves. They had managed to destroy the carbon pricing mechanism that Julia Gillard’s government had instituted. And here we have a parliamentarian cosplaying, being working class, wearing the high-vis jacket in Parliament.
What we learn is that the high-vis jacket is a potent, easy symbol of manual labour masculinity. And therefore the “authenticity” that comes from that. And people like to cosplay that. It makes them feel good. It enables them to enlist “salt of the earth” memes, and by extension accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being in an effete latte sipping liberal.
What happened next? The guy was censured for bringing props into parliament. That didn’t seem to stop Scotty from marketing. Three years later, with this lump of stupidity, that was what he carried between his ears. There was also a lump of coal in his hand that had been provided to him by the Minerals Council of Australia. They had lacquered it so it didn’t smudge.
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.
Twenty-years ago, on this day, April 24th, 2004, the business outfit the “Climate Group” was launched, with a speech by Tony Blair.
24 April 2004 Launch of the Climate Group. Blair speaks at it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3662303.stm
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the UNFCCC process was potentially coming back on board with Kyoto moving towards ratification. Businesses were worrying. The Global Climate Coalition was dead. There was a space for new business activity. And along comes the Climate Group launched today but probably conceived a couple of years before.
What we learn is that the early 2000s mark a kind of shift, there is that split in business between what the headbangers have wanted and succeeded in destroying, i.e. destroying high ambition. And then there’s all the other companies, which might make money from the green transition, or can just read a bloody Keeling curve, and see that there’s trouble ahead.
What happened next, the Climate Group had its peak years probably in the run up to Copenhagen. It’s still going. I’m not quite sure why. There is now a coalition called “we mean business” as well. But there’s always a proliferation of these groups, I guess, representing slightly different interests and making work for well-meaning but fundamentally dim technocrats.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that China was industrialising at warp speed. That of course meant coal and all that that entails, both in local air pollution and also carbon dioxide emissions.
What we learn from this is that outfits like Greenpeace China, my goodness, what a tough environment to be in…
What happened next? China then also overtook the US as number one emitter (but not per capita). And China has continued to be a Rorschach test. You can see whatever you want to see in it
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.
Ten years ago, on this dy, February 5th, 2014, the rather interesting trade association the Carbon Capture and Storage Association was busy throwing more words and evidence at policymakers, in a tie-in with the TUC.
RE: CCSA Additional Written Evidence to Energy and Climate Change Committee Inquiry into Carbon Capture and Storage
The Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) submitted evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Inquiry into Carbon Capture and Storage in September 2013. Since then, the CCSA and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) have published the joint report “The Economic Benefits of Carbon Capture and Storage in the UK” on the 4th February 2014 and we would like to bring this report to the attention of the Committee as additional evidence to the Inquiry into CCS.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.2ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context here was that CCS had already spent 10 years being a “yeah we’re definitely interested” technology in the UK. BP had given up on Miller field in 2007. And the first competition had fizzled out. But now the second competition was well underway. And people were beginning to look beyond the second competition to building an actual ecosystem of facilities, pipelines, storage. And the CCSA and the TUC, while their members probably fought like tooth and dog and cat and nail on issues such as well, wages and terms and conditions etc, they had a common interest in promoting CCS as the saviour of the coal industry and of heavy industry.
What we learn is that technology can have multiple meanings to different organisations, who realise that they have to make common cause.
What happened next. On 25th of November 2015,UK Chancellor George Osborne shat all over CCS. It then took a serious effort to revivify it. And despite that effort, here, we are still without any clarity.
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.
