Not long after the New Yorker series appeared, President John F. Kennedy announced the formation of a special governmental group to investigate use and control of pesticides, under the direction of the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC). On May 15, 1963, the committee’s report, Pesticides Use and Control, confirmed every point highlighted in Silent Spring.
MacDonald, G. 1998. Environment: The evolution of a concept. IIASA
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Rachel Carson had written a book that no publisher was interested in. The New Yorker serialised it and the shit properly hit the fan. The pesticide manufacturers and chemical companies came out swinging of course – all the techniques that would later be standard – smears, strawmanning and the rest of it. Kennedy asked his science guys to look at it…
What I think we can learn from this. We should all stage annual am-dram productions of Henry Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People” to remind ourselves of what happens if you alert folks to dangers that will interfere with capital accumulation (in a few hands).
What happened next Carson died of breast cancer in 1964. In terms of people with the biggest impact in the 20th century who isn’t a homicidal maniac, she’s pretty high up the league table.
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.
Sun Day is a day of action on September 21, 2025, celebrating solar and wind power, and the movement to leave fossil fuels behind.
Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power on the planet – and gives us a chance to actually do something about the climate crisis. But fossil fuel billionaires are doing everything they can to shut it down.
We will build, rally, sing, and come together in the communities that we need to get laws changed and work done.
Sixteen years ago, on this day, May 14th, 2009 the first Australian ETS legislation introduced into Parliament:
The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 is introduced into the House of Representatives.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there had been proposals to put a price on carbon dioxide via a tax in the early 1990s. Both had been defeated by coalitions of actors coordinated by the Business Council of Australia and what became the Minerals Council of Australia. There had been an effort by state Premiers to stitch together a “bottom-up” emissions trading scheme after it became clear that the Federal Government would not implement one (Prime Minister John Howard personally vetoed a proposal supported by the rest of his Cabinet in 2003). Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of the ALP had come to power promising climate action. Now, at last, he was introducing some deeply shitty legislation that was basically a do-as-little-as-possible-while-keeping-big-business-happy scheme. He expected it to fail the first time round, and he wasn’t disappointed.
What I think we can learn from this
Play games with the fate of the earth and don’t be surprised when it blows up in your face and people realise you are a hollow wanker. Rudd was the worst Prime Minister Australia had had for a while, imo. But then came Abbott and Morrison…
What happened next the CPRS got reintroduced as legislation in November 2009, and fell, because the Opposition toppled its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and replaced him with an inadequate knuckle dragger called Tony Abbott. Oh god, what a horrorshow. What a soap opera scripted and directed by David Lynch, Salvador Dali and Satan.
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 391ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the ALP had already corralled the bigger environmental groups in 2009, to support their wretched “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.” By 2011 the grassroots groups were exhausted and despondent and the best anyone could do was support the “Say Yes” campaign, with its Carbon Cate advert.
What I think we can learn from this Political parties (especially when in government), ultimately, have the whip hand over social movement organisations and non-governmental organisations, using the usual arguments (“art of the possible” “if not us, then the even more evil motherfuckers” etc etc). And social movement organisations know on some level that they can’t sustain the activity, “maintain the rage” and so (have to) fold, have to go along with monstrously inadequate measures.
What happened next Gillard’s ETS got through in late 2011, and became law in mid-2012. It started to “work” – in that emissions began to come down (or was that actually due to more Tasmanian electricity, from hydro, coming into the mainland grid – opinions vary). Then the LNP took office, and Tony ‘wrecking ball’ Abbott abolished Gillard’s ETS. Australian climate politics has been a form of madness ever since. In medical terms, take your pick – Cheynes-Stokes breathing, ventricular fibrillation, whatever – it’s all just “circling the drain” or “approaching room temperature.” What a species.
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.
I am wanting to make the All Our Yesterdays site both better visited (a separate project) and also more “useful” to various types of folks. On that, there are bigger issues besides the nature of individual blog posts, but I am starting with that.
Below is a proposed slightly expanded version of what already has been in place for the last couple of years.
Could I have your thoughts on this format and especially
what is extraneous
what doesn’t work
what is missing
etc (don’t hold back)
TITLE (no puns, straight up what was said)
On this day (xxx) in (year)… SENTENCE describing
QUOTE
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was xxx As of 2025, when this post was published, it is xxx. 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
The broader context for this was xxx
The specific context was xxxx
What I think we can learn is this: xxx
As “active citizens –
Academics might want to ponder…
What happened next: xx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xxx (though surely these should be folded into the context??)
References
(as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.
Also on this day:
Exact same day
Either side
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated)
I don’t get invited to give a lot of speeches. And by the end of this one, you will have a pretty good idea of why.
In the next few minutes, I will do two things. First, outline what “we” knew, how, when. That’s based on time and really diminutive instances of space from this spot where we stand today, Parliament Square
Second – I will ask two questions. “What does it mean to be a good scientist?” and “Are you willing to try to be not only good citizens, but good scientists?”
I suspect if you asked most people walking past this demonstration how long governments have known about climate change, they’ll guess twenty years or so. Some of the older ones might – just might – remember Margaret Thatcher in September 1988, addressing the Royal Society two and a half miles from here.
The geeks might know that Thatcher was briefed about carbon dioxide build-up only a hundred or so metres from here in May 1979, by her chief scientific advisor, John Ashton. Thatcher replied with an incredulous “you want me to worry about the weather.”
But let’s go further back I’ll pass over the Frenchman, Fourier, and the American, Foote, and the Anglo-Irishman Tyndall, because time is short. The Swede, Svante Arrhenius pointed to the long-term impact of increased carbon dioxide on the Earth’s heat balance in 1895. Other scientists – mistakenly – said it wasn’t so. Then, in 1938 a mere steam engineer, Guy Callendar, addressed the Royal Meteorological Society and said it was carbon dioxide build-up that was warming the planet.
Things really kicked off in 1953 with the work of Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass. Through the 1950s, in newspaper articles, academic articles, speeches and more, the spectre of climate change from carbon dioxide build-up. Including many many in the UK.
Three miles from here, fifty seven years ago, in 1968 Lord Ritchie Calder gave an address to the Conservation Society – the title “Hell on Earth” tells you what he thought was coming. He mentioned carbon dioxide build-up, something he had been aware of since 1954 at the latest.
In 1970 the very first Environment White Paper was drafted in offices close to where we stand now. It included reference to the carbon dioxide build-up problem.
All this seems abstract. But in April 1989 again, meteres from here, there was a whole one day meeting of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet devoted to the greenhouse effect and what to do about it.
The following year, in May 1990 the Met Office’s John Houghton was invited to brief the cabinet on the very first Working Group 1 of the IPCC report.
I could go on, but surely, I do not need to say more. Since the birth of carbon dioxide build-up as a public policy issue in 1988, we have had promises, pledges, plans, speeches assurances., amborees of advice giving, special cabinet meetings. Politicians have KNOWN it as “an issue”, without ever seeing how much of one it really is.
Politicians around the world have been warned by good scientists – Martin Holdgate, John Houghton, John Mitchell, Chris Folland, Barrie Pittock, Graham Pearman, Herman Flohn, the list could go on and on and on.
So why have I told you this? Partly to get you intrigued enough to visit my All Our Yesterdays website, of course! But to lead into the main questions I want to pose you. Again “what does it mean to be a good scientist?” and “are you willing to try to be not only good citizens, but good scientists?”
A scientist – natural or “social” – tries to see patterns, and to explain the mechanisms underneath them. Scientists pride themselves on finding facts, bouncing these facts off theories in the hope of testing those theories, making better theories. (I know some of the philosophers of science will be cringing at the moment – I know it’s more complicated than that – but this is a short speech, not a 300 page book.)
Science is there to help us see the world more as it is, less as we have assumed it to be, less as we would LIKE it to be, less as it is comforting to believe it is.
Or, to put it in the much better words of the late great Richard Feynman
“Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
A good scientist doesn’t keep running the same experiment and expecting a different result because they want a different result.
But here we are. Thinking that the problem is that the scientists aren’t being heard and therefore the solution is for them to speak slower, louder.
But by sticking to a naive “information deficit” model, believing that science must be “brought” to politics is to continue with the myth that what is lacking is knowledge. To quote Sven Lindqvist – “It is not knowledge we lack. What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions”
A good scientist looks at the results of previous experiments and changes the hypotheses accordingly. Thesis, antithesis, new hypothesis…
And so I urge you to be the good scientists I am sure you are, and look at the evidence of the last 35 years. The politicians atop the British State have had all the information they ever needed. It is not knowledge we – or they – lack.
And I ask you – and this is where I will lose anyone I haven’t already lost – to be not just good citizens, as you undoubtedly are – but good scientists about your good citizenship. I ask you think about why we have had waves of public concern about climate change that come and go in three or four year spasms. 1988 to 1992, 2006 to 2010, 2018 to 2021 or so. (Yes, there’s activity outside those periods.) But ask yourself what you, as scientists, think are the reasons for that. What is it that civil society – professional bodies, unions, charities, pressure groups, social movement organisations – need to do DIFFERENTLY? What are the barriers to acting differently? What can you, with your training in the spotting of patterns, do to help individuals and groups spot their patterns and devise experiments to get out of those patterns?
You’re scientists. You have a responsibility not just to speak up about this issue, to pressure the politicians. You have a responsibility to act as scientists regarding your citizenship. We cannot afford to run the same experiments, and get the same results.
Because the emissions are rising, the concentrations are rising, the seas are rising, but the last best hope for civilisation – the people of the Western democracies who could, in theory at least, transform the world’s economies and cultures? They, they are not rising.
Fifty one years ago, on this day, May 12th, 1974, the Grey Lady (New York Times) runs a story about the colourless gas…,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the Arab oil embargo, in response to US support for Israel during the Yom Kippur war, had spiked oil prices. While the oil companies were coining it, everyone was looking around for Alternatives
(environmental considerations around energy production were not an issue for most people at this point).
What I think we can learn from this– the Hydrogen hype has waxed and waned and waxed and waned… There is little new under the sun.
What happened next fossil fuels managed to maintain their “indispensible” status (with a little help from their friends, who starved the alternatives, including solar, efficiency etc, of research and development funds…). The emissions climbed, the atmospheric concentrations climbed. Fun fact – by the late 1970s, Exxon (and other oil companies) absolutely knew what was coming.
And we are here, now, at the end of the world, more or less, give or take some decades of horror.
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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 11th, 1990, the Australian Financial Review ran the following, based on an early example of “the sky will fall if we give the greenies an inch” economic ‘modelling’. There’d be much more of this nonsense over the coming years – it’s a favoured tactic, because, well, it works.
Sustainable development is catching up with Australia fast. The economy is going through an investment boom which could provide the export revenue in the 1990s that would make our current account and foreign debt positions “sustainable”….
The accompanying table lists 26 major investment projects under consideration which Access Economics says appear to be in danger of environmental veto, including the Cape York spaceport (worth $350 million), the Very Fast Train project ($4.5 billion) and 24 resource and manufacturing projects valued at $11 billion.
Stutchbury, M. 1990. Environmental threat to investment boom. Australian Financial Review , 11 May.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that capital was having one of its periodic bouts of panic that the meatpuppets it owned in the nominal independent “State” (aka “politicians” and “senior civil servants”) might not respond to string-pulling quickly enough, and might end up – under popular pressure – passing laws that hindered the rights of the filthy rich to get filthier richer quicker. When that happens there’s hand-wringing and pearl-clutching and then reports produced about how the sky will fall if Intemperate Action is taken. There’s a sideline in issue denial (usually done with plausible deniability). There’s quiet words with key people about where they see themselves in five years (non-executive directorships etc or out on their ear) and the point is made that nobody is indispensable and that opposing political parties will be happy to receive donations etc.
What I think we can learn from this.It is about capital accumulation. Don’t get in their way unless you’re happy to be roadkill. This is the lesson all junior apparatchiks are taught. Those that learn it may last a while. Those who don’t learn it won’t, by definition.
What happened next No serious impediments have ever been placed on the ability of capital to “invest”/extract/whatever they want. Australia is becoming an uninhabitable slagheap, full of miserable angry people. The figures behind the Harvester Settlement will be squirming in their graves… Oh well.
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.
Eighteen Years ago, on this day, May 10th, 2007, the Australian Labor Party’s Treasury guy, Wayne Swan, makes fun of Peter Costello because the latter acquiesced, four years previousy, in the destruction of an emissions trading scheme that the entire LNP cabinet had been okay with. Well, entire but for one guy – Prime Minister John Howard…. By 2007 this was perfect ammunition for Kevin Rudd and his cronies, who were using climate as a stick to beat Howard with.
10 May 2007 Swan versus Costello in Parliament on the 2003 emissions trading scheme
Mr SWAN (2:11 PM) —My question is directed to the Treasurer, and I refer him to his interview on The 7.30 Report on the ABC on budget night where he refused to answer a question on past Treasury advice on carbon trading.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right will come to order.
Mr SWAN —It was a spectacular performance by the Treasurer.
The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley will commence his question again, and he will be heard.
Mr SWAN —I refer the Treasurer to his interview on The 7.30 Report on budget night where he refused to answer a question on past Treasury advice on carbon trading. Can the Treasurer confirm that the government rejected a 2003 cabinet submission on emissions trading? Is this why Dr Henry, the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, said he wished he had been listened to more attentively on climate change? Does the Treasurer believe the last four years is an unacceptable delay or an acceptable delay?
Mr COSTELLO (Treasurer) —The government is about to receive a report on emissions trading prepared by an interdepartmental group which senior members of the Treasury have been participating in. I look forward to receiving that. As soon as the government receives that report it will announce its response, and I expect that to be a good response.
Ms George —You won’t get rolled this time like you did last time.
Mr COSTELLO —Oh, yes, the former ACTU president comes in on cue. There is a former ACTU president over there, one over here, one over there and another one to come.
Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The Treasurer said it is on his desk. Will we have to wait four years to see it?
Mr COSTELLO —Labor might regard Rod Eddington as ‘another voice’, but it regards the ACTU as a multiple chorus. I am going to go on and make another point about receiving the report on the carbon emissions trading scheme. This government will actually receive the report before it announces its policy, and it will actually consider the consequences of various emissions targets before it names that policy which it will undertake. That is quite different from the Labor approach, which was to name an emissions target. This is what the Leader of the Opposition did: he named an emissions target and then he set up an inquiry to figure out what it would mean. He said that he was going to have this target by 2050 and then he said to Ross Garnaut, ‘Go and find out what the effect would be.’ I tell you this: when you are dealing with economic consequences, when you are dealing with people’s lives, it is a much better principle to find out what the effect of your policies will be before you adopt them—and that is what this government will be doing.
The SPEAKER —Has the Treasurer completed his answer?
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in late 2006 the climate issue had again broken through in Australia. Everyone had to pretend that they had always cared, and always taken appropriate action. John Howard’s track record of pure evil asshole-ness made this especially difficult for him, and he couldn’t manage it.
What I think we can learn from this. Again, it’s all kayfabe.There are plot-lines and story arcs, but the main through-line is that nobody is going to risk their career etc by doing the “right” thing, especially when that won’t matter.
What happened next is that the Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd won the 2007 Federal election and then managed to screw the pooch on climate so bad that – well, Australia is doomed. But was anyway – the damage was done by 1995, and there’s been no coming back…
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.
Thirty six years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989 that nice young Tony Blair has an opinion piece in the Guardian. It includes the immortal lines
“From the moment Mrs Thatcher took up the greenhouse effect she has been at risk. Market forces cannot solve it. Indeed, they may have caused it.”
And later
“It is wholly impractical to solve the greenhouse effect through increased reliance on nuclear power.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Margarat Thatcher had performed an astonishing reverse-ferret in September 1988, and brought “the greenhouse effect” onto the political agenda. Then,her bluff was called by various NGOs, who threw down a thirty point “green gauntlet” in November. It was obvious she was all mouth and no trousers. Labour had to have a response, and this was it…
What I think we can learn from this is political parties are always seeking out – or responding to – “issues” thrown up by social movements, the media.
What happened next. A few weeks later Blair would be rubbishing the idea of any carbon taxes.
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
Blair, T. 1989. People switch on to the age of the green light-bulb. The Guardian, May 9, p.9
