Tag: Financial Times

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

January 17, 2016 – CCS running out of steam?

Ten years ago, on this day, January 17th, 2016 the Financial Times reports on the aftermath of the Conservative government’s decision to pull funding (£1bn) for carbon capture and storage.

Scott, M. 2016. Carbon capture at risk of running out of steam. Financial Times, 17 January. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91726a24-a4be-11e5-a91e-162b86790c58.html#ixzz3xVjZrV00

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

 The broader context was that carbon capture and storage had first been mooted in the late 1970s (and was regarded sceptically).  It had had a brief moment in the late 1980s, and then disappeared into the undergrowth.

The specific context was that after a failed first CCS competition (2007-2011) another one had been set up. Companies were to compete for a billion quid. Then, abruptly, Chancellor George Osborne killed that. 

What I think we can learn from this is that technologies go through ups and downs.  CCS is a proper roller-coaster. You can read all about it here. (Hudson, 2024)

What happened next

The CCS band-wagon had its wheels put back on, a new axle etc, between 2016 and 2018.  Enormous amounts of money are being spent.  CO2 savings? Not so much…

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 17, 1970 – The Bulletin reprints crucial environment/climate article

January 17th – A religious perspective on climate action

January 17, 2001 – Enron engineers energy “blackouts” to gouge consumers

Categories
NotClimate

January 2, 1893 – The Financial Times becomes a pinko rag

On January 2nd 1893 

“the FT began printing on light pink paper to distinguish it from the similarly named Financial News: at the time, it was also cheaper to print on unbleached paper (several other more general newspapers, such as The Sporting Times, had the same policy), but nowadays it is more expensive as the paper has to be dyed specially.”

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were at 295 parts per million. As of 2026 they are 428 ppm at and rising rapidly.  Enjoy yourself, it’s later than you think. 

Btw, the point(s) of this project is ….  the how, the who the hell am I and the what do I currently believe?

The context was

Lots of newspapers – how are you going to distinguish yourself?

Why care?

No reason –  I love the Financial Times because it, more or less is unashamed celebration of capitalism. It’s intelligent. It’s what you try to read occasionally to make sense of the world. 

(How) does it connect to climate change?

It doesn’t, but the FT’s coverage, with caveats, is worth your time.

What happened next

It has stayed salmon pink

How does it help us understand the world?

It doesn’t, but if you read the FT, the Morning Star, Private Eye, the London Review of Books and listen to some well-chosen podcasts, then a tolerably accurate picture emerges. Having a lot of background knowledge of history, sociology, political and economic theory helps too?

How does it help us act in the world?

Grotius’ last words, innit?

The other things that you could read about this or watch 

The Herman and Chomsky propaganda model

What do you think?

If you have opinions or info about this, or other things that happened on this day that are worth knowing, let me know!

Also on this day

Wikipedia

Working Class History

What Happened on January 2 | HISTORY

Bonus –

“On 2 January 1950, the 300 meat porters at Smithfield’s market in London launched a “lightning” strike completely shutting down London’s meat supply in protest at bosses’ refusal to employ one man who did not have the required references. The workers claimed the man had excellent character and should be employed pending the arrival of references. 1,200 t of meat was held up, at a time when many shops had run low due to the holiday period. This is a video about the dispute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig4pmulS5uU More info about class struggle in this period in this account of workers struggles under the post-war Labour government”: https://libcom.org/history/how-labour-governed-1945-1951

Also, this

El Vaquita fake march – WCH | Stories

Categories
Coal Germany

November 15, 1979 – the FT reports on German concerns about fossil fuel effects.

Forty six years ago, on this day, November 15th, 1979, the FT reports

“West Germany is to set up a study which could have a serious impact on its future energy policies, which at present stress the central importance of coal. The investigation is into the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.”

Boyes, Roger, 1979. Germany Probes Fossil Fuel Effects. Financial Times, November 15, p. 2

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. 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 Germans had been worrying about carbon dioxide for a little while by now (Hermann Flohn’s influence, possibly?).

The specific context was by the mid-1970s meetings were being held at IIASA and elsewhere about the problem. German scientists, and some politicians, were on the case. The first World Climate Conference, hosted by the WMO, had taken place in February 1979 in Geneva. In June 1979 Helmut Schmidt gave an interview to Time magazine where he explicitly mentioned carbon dioxide build-up. The G7 meeting (in Tokyo) had namechecked the issue. 

What I think we can learn from this – plenty of people knew. But what are you going to do if you run on coal and nukes?

What happened next – the emissions kept climbing, of course. At the G7 in Bonn in 1985, the climate issue got namechecked again.

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: 

November 15, 1958 – Academic Paper on “Changes in Carbon Dioxide Content of Atmosphere and Sea Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion” submitted

November 15, 1983 – “Energy Futures and Carbon Dioxide” report…

November 15, 2004 – Bob Carr on Lateline- “no other developed country will be as severely affected by global warming as Australia.” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes

October 21, 1991 – “Environment agencies start to flex their muscles”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 21st, 1991,

An international plan was unveiled yesterday to “harness the total resources of humanity” to improve the global environment by measures which include massive reductions in energy consumption and the use of natural resources in industrialised countries.

The proposals, put forward by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world conservation union (IUCN) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), envisage the establishment of a new world organisation – probably based on the United Nations – to co-ordinate environmental protection and encourage sustainable development which does not deplete natural resources.

The reports entitled “Caring for the Earth”, suggest that the UN general assembly could coordinate the system through its committees and produce annual reports on the state of the world environment.

Launching the report in London, the Duke of Edinburgh, president of the WWF, warned that unless population growth was halted soon world resources would no longer be able to support humanity’s needs and economies would face collapse. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/cfe-003.pdf

Unknown Author, 1991. Environment Agencies Start To Flex Their Muscles. Financial Times October 22 p.4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. 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. I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that many of these organisations had been established in the 1950s or 1960s, when the major issues were habitat loss. Over time the ones that could roll with the punches, adopt new language etc., were able to survive while the small, unlucky or “stuck” with a particular perspective or image stayed small or died. By 1991 the second great eco-awakening was already three years old, and participant fatigue was beginning to set in.

The specific context was that the Rio Earth Summit was just 8 months away, and everyone was hoping that this time they’d all get it right and Save the World. 

What I think we can learn from this – green groups can have hopes, but then, well, there’s always reality…

What happened next. Reader, nobody Saved the World. The UNFCCC was a farce, and the emissions are 60+ per cent higher than they were in 1990.

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 21, 1989 – Langkawi Declaration on environmental sustainability… 

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

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

September 10, 2015 – one of those “whither CCS?” articles

Ten years ago, on this day, September 10th, 2015, the Financial Times did one of its “Big Reads.”

More than $30bn has been committed, or spent, on carbon capture and storage schemes to deal with CO2 emissions curb climate change but so far the sector – the preferred option of the fossil fuels industry – has fallen short of expectations. By Pilita Clark

Today it is just a scrubby field next to the enormous Drax coal and wood pellet power station in the English county of North Yorkshire. But in a matter of months, this could be the spot where the UK finally gives the go-ahead for what has become one of the world’s most perplexing tools in the quest to combat climate change : a carbon capture and storage plant.

Clark, P. 2015. Miracle machine or white elephant? FT BIG READ: CLIMATE CHANGE. Financial Times, 10 September, p.11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it was 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 much hyped Paris COP was only two months away, and the full-page adverts of greenwash were starting to appear in the pink’un (aka the Financial Times). So, time to let one of the hacks (quite a good one, imo) educate the rich.

The specific context was that it was also hot times for CCS policy – a second competition (the first had fizzled out)) was picking up speed.

What I think we can learn from this  is that we’ve been talking about turning points and last chances for a very very long time.

What happened next

The second competition for CCS was very abruptly cancelled (people were seriously butt-hurt, understandably).

Paris was a joke, but one we still, apparently, have to take seriously.

And Drax?  Well, there’s an FCA investigation about its “sustainability” claims just firing up…

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: 

September 10, 1957 – The Times covers the International Geodesy Conference… – All Our Yesterdays

September 10, 1973- Ozone concerns on display in Kyoto…

September 10, 2007 – shiny #climate promises versus grim reality

September 10, 2008 – Greenpeace Kingsnorth protesters acquitted

Categories
United Kingdom

May 11, 1990 – the Financial Times on good intentions not cutting it

Thirty four years ago, on this day, May 11th, 1990, the pink’un pointed out that the problem would be difficult to solve.

If the world’s environmental problems could be solved by high-powered conferences, then the planet would have nothing to worry about. Officials from the world’s environment ministries, activists from green pressure groups and scientists specialising in environmental problems have spent the year jetting from one international gathering to another.

Thomas, D and Hunt, J. 1990. Wave on wave of good intentions: The issues facing the world’s environmental diplomats. Financial Times, 11 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were, as the FT article says, endless meetings for diplomats and negotiators to attend, on either “sustainable development” or climate or both. The Earth Summit was due in June of 1992. 

And the FT had been running some good pieces, some good reportage and the usual bullshit denial because that’s what a portion of its audience wanted. 

What we learn is what the FT is, quite rightly pointing out is that good intentions will get you so far, fine words butter, no parsnips, etc. 

 What happened next, the FT kept running the occasional denial bullshit, but on the whole, reasonably good reportage and reasonably good opinion within its worldview, obviously. Pretty much everyone acts within their worldview all the time, especially if they’re a big organisation that needs its gatekeepers. 

See also Herman and Chomsky propaganda model 

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: 

May 11, 1971 – U Thant gets The Message

May 11, 1988 – “Greenhouse Glasnost” USA and USSR to co-operate on climate

Categories
Letters to publications

Whoop! Letter in the FT about climate change and baked in temperature rise

In today’s FT (February 23)…

There is a curious sentence in the excellent article “The power of Europe’s rebel farmers” by Alice Hancock and Andy Bounds (FT Weekend, February 10). They write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned of “‘substantive agricultural production losses’… if temperatures continue to rise.”

If? To quote the famed American diplomat George Kennan, writing in 1948 in another context “we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming.”

Every year we pour more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – almost 70% per annum more since policymakers first started mouthing the pieties 35 years ago. This year atmospheric concentrations will be 425 parts per million, 100pm more than when I was born in 1970.  As charted by the United Nations Environment Program’s annual “Emissions Gap” report, the chasm (or abyss) between our alleged ambition and the physical requirements to keep temperature increases even below an unsafe 2 degrees above pre-Industrial levels. grows remorselessly, every year.  

There is no “if” – or but – about it. Temperatures will increase, with all the consequences we can imagine, and more than a few we cannot.  Might the FT lead the way in replacing “if” with “as” in its coverage?

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Thirty four years ago, on this day, February 1st, 1990, an article about possible carbon taxes from the Financial Times (London) was syndicated in the Australian Financial Review (aka “The Fin”).

“Drastic measures to combat global atmospheric pollution caused by burning carbon fuels were urged yesterday by the International Energy Agency.”

Anon. 1990. Carbon Fuel Tax May Limit Pollution Levels. Australian Financial Review, 2 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422.3ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at Nordwijk in November of 1989, nations had agreed to keep talking about talking about negotiating a climate treaty. There were other meetings coming up. And the International Energy Agency was sticking its oar in with the suggestion of carbon taxes and pricing mechanisms. Also there was a federal election pending in Australia, the climate issue was very salient. 

What we learn is that debates about carbon pricing have been shaped by prestigious powerful – or prestigious, at least – outfits like the IEA in ways that I didn’t fully understand for my PhD thesis, but here we are. 

What happened next, Bob Hawke narrowly won the March 1993 election with small g. green votes, and was therefore obliged to follow through with this idea of ecologically sustainable development. 

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: 

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climate

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

Feb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker

Categories
Agnotology Denial United Kingdom

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 3, 1990, the normally sane Financial Times published a brain fart of an article

Thomas, David (1990) The cracks in the greenhouse theory. Financial Times 3 November

There were claims that the IPCC organisers had deliberately excluded strong dissenters, such as Richard Lindzen, Hugh Elsaesser and Fred Singer, from participating in the IPCC. One unnamed scientist went so far as to claim that the supporters of the greenhouse theory ‘behave like Hitler’ by conspiring to prevent critics from publishing their conclusions in leading scientific journals (quoted in Thomas, 1990.)

Paterson, M (1996) Page 45

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report had been delivered two months earlier. Since then, there had been fierce contestation of it. And this article in the FT was part of the push back ahead of the second World Climate Conference in Geneva and the imminent start of the climate negotiations. So the FT was wanting to cater to its various members, readers, some of whom would want to doubt awkward physical realities.

Eleven months earlier, Forbes had run a similar piece of nonsense (Link).

What I think we can learn from this

I am not suggesting that the Global Climate Coalition or the British Coal board phoned up the editor of the FT and ordered him to order an underling to write this. That’s not how power works. That’s not how the world usually works, 99.99 times out of 100. 

What happened next

The FT stopped being quite so fucking useless on climate change. It’s currently quite good (especially when they publish my letters).

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
Letters to publications

Letter in FT: Global carbon price call is a classic delaying tactic

WHOOP! Another letter in the FT.

Here’s the text-

It would be nice to live in Patrick J Allen’s world (FT letters “Getting mad at oil majors won’t solve energy crisis,” FT Weekend, 18 February). In that world innocent and disinterested oil companies are simply waiting for the world’s governments to agree a global carbon price.

Sadly, this world – the real one- is rapidly overheating. In this world oil companies have spent the last 35 years – from the very start of the climate negotiations – resolutely opposing such measures at both national and international levels. Whether the price is a tax or an emissions trading scheme, oil companies have been key players in the campaign of predatory delay, delaying deferring watering down either via direct lobbying, or by funding groups that deny the basic reality of 19th century physics.

Indeed, the call for a global carbon price is a classic delaying technique, because such a price would take decades to agree, even if it could be (doubtful).

These are decades during which two things would happen. One, the impacts of the carbon dioxide we have already put into the air would accelerate. Second, oil company profits would continue to climb.

Dr Marc Hudson

So, on the 19th century physics bit – before Arrhenius in 1896, there was this –

The French chemist Fourier in 1824/1827, showing that given the Earth’s distance from the Sun, and the temperature of the Earth, there must be *something* trapping heat, as in a greenhouse (see Jason Fleming’s excellent article).

Eunice Foote and John Tyndall in the late 1850s and early 1860s respectively showing that “carbonic acid” (essentially carbon dioxide in solution) traps heat…

On predatory delay –

“Predatory delay is the blocking or slowing of needed change, in order to make money off unsustainable, unjust systems in the meantime. For delay to be truly predatory, those engaged in it need to know two things: That they’re hurting others and that there are other options.”

Why I write

I LOVE the FT – not for its pro-growth, pro-capitalism ideology, but for its intelligence, the facts it displays, the quality of its writers. As Chomsky has said, if you want a tolerably accurate view of the world, read the quality business press (albeit with your bullshit detectors set to maximum settings), because these papers are written for the people who are actually running the show, and they need accurate information, not fairy stories they want to believe or they want/need other people to believe.

And that’s why I put effort into pushing back against bad narratives about climate change that appear in the FT. If the pushback gets published, then it appears in front of people who ‘matter’. As theories of change go, it’s not much, I agree, but at least it’s not going to make things actively worse…