Forty six years ago, on this day, November 24th, 1973,
24 Nov 1973 – A national speed limit is imposed on the Autobahn in Germany because of the 1973 oil crisis. The speed limit lasted only four months.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 330ppm. 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 the 1973 Oil Shock was forcing governments to constrain some forms of behaviour.
What I think we can learn from this – it didn’t last. Humans desire for speed – and the illusions of freedom that can bring – is a very powerful force.
What happened next – the law didn’t last. 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.
Extinction Rebellion UK claims it will have 2million ppl mobilised
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. 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 last climate “wave” of concern began in 2018, with the long hot summer, the IPCC’s 1.5 degrees report, Greta Thunberg and … XR. But by late 2019, before the pandemic, it was clear that the wheels were wobbling, if not actually falling off.
What happened next – Soon after XR announced “we quit”. And I wrote about that too.
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.
Sixty years ago, on this day, November 23rd 1965, American scientist Walter Orr Roberts gave a speech. In it, this –
“Perhaps, through this mechanism, we are already modifying the atmosphere, unknowingly and on a large scale, as we clearly are already doing on the city scale. Indeed, can we be sure that city-scale modification is simply city-scale? Or are the atmospheric solids and gases put in over the city bringing changes on a larger scale? The relative abundance of carbon dioxide is clearly rising in the atmosphere, almost certainly through man’s intervention. But no one seems at all secure about what this is doing to the climate.”
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 47, No. 3, March 1966 Based on an address delivered at the International Symposium on Electromagnetic Sensing of the Earth from Satellites, Miami, Fla., 23 November 1965.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. 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 since the early 1950s the question of carbon dioxide build-up and its possible climatic consequences had been known. Not necessarily taken seriously, but by the mid-1960s, this was -just- beginning to shift.
The specific context was Roberts gave his speech in the aftermath of the release of the PSAC report on November 7th 1965.
What I think we can learn from this – it wasn’t secret or arcane information. I am not saying “everyone knew” but, well, a lot of people did.
What happened next – the emissions kept climbing. NCAR kept investigating.
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 nine years ago, on this day, November 22nd, 1996, freshly re-elected US President Bill Clinton is in Australia….
“Finally, we must work to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. These gases released by cars and power plants and burning forests affect our health and our climate. They are literally warming our planet. If they continue unabated, the consequences will be nothing short of devastating for the children here in this audience and their children.
“New weather patterns, lost species, the spread of infectious diseases, damaged economies, rising sea levels: if present trends continue, there is a real risk that sometime in the next century, parts of this very park we are here in today could disappear, submerged by a rising ocean. That is why today, from this remarkable place, I call upon the community of nations to agree to legally binding commitments to fight climate change.”
Prime Minister John Howard dissed it of course – see Gordon, M. 1996. “Howard defends stand on emissions.” The Australian, November 25, p.4.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 Clinton had started his first term with promises of climate action, and then had his arse handed to him over the BTU tax.
The specific context was that Clinton had just won re-election, defeating Bob Dole, and knew that there would be fun and games ahead, internationally, because the Kyoto conference was coming up in December 1997. Given the Australian stance at COP2, it was clear there was gonna be Australian resistance and shitfuckery.
What I think we can learn from this – Clinton was not stupid. Corrupt, venal, slimy, yes. Stupid, no.
What happened next – Australia spent 1997 demanding special treatment, and got it, carving out an increase in emissions as its emissions “reductions” target.
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 nine years ago, on this day, November 21st, 1997,
ENERGY giant Shell is considering pulling out of coal production in Australia in what would be the first major move anywhere in the world by a multinational company to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The Dutch chairman of the corporation, Mr Cor Herstroter, has told two London newspapers the groups’ coal assets “were at present under review with the aim of divestment”. But Shell Australia executives yesterday played down the reports from London, claiming that the company fully intended to stay in coal production.
Benson, S. 1997. Coal too hot for Shell. Daily Telegraph, November 21
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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, awash in cash in the 1970s, oil companies had bought up all sorts of assets. Some they got out of quickly, others, more slowly.
The specific context was Shell was having a think…
What I think we can learn from this – companies invest, divest, everything changes.
What happened next – Shell did in fact get rid of its Australian coal mines…
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-eight years ago, on this day, November 20th, 1997, Australian Prime Minister John Howard gives a “everything is cool” speech, leading to birth of the Australian Greenhouse Organisation (AGO) and the Mandatory Renewables Energy Target (MRET)
Greens Senator Bob Brown concluded:
A$65 million for renewable energy over five years… does not even retrieve the A$75 million (over five years) lost when the Energy Research and Development Corporation and Renewable Energy Industry Programs were abolished…. The target of an extra 2% of electricity from renewables (making a total of 11% including current large-scale hydro electricity generation) compares miserably with international standards (e.g. Britain’s target of 20% from renewables by 2010)… There are no targets for energy efficiency… There is no move to halt clearing of native vegetation which accounts for 23% of emissions.
(Taplin and Yu, 2000: 104) [Big Brother and the Chocolate Rations]
R Brown, PM’s Greenhouse Package – 18% Increase! Media Release, Australian Senate, 20 November 1997
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 Australian policy elites had decided not to do anything about climate change by about 1994. John Howard turbo-charged that contempt for future generations when he became Prime Minister in 1996.
The specific context was that Howard had spent 1997 sending emissaries to try to carve out the sweetest deal possible at the December 1997 COP in Kyoto. He had come under some pressure from within the Liberal Party (from grandees who had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up for decades) and also needed to pretend to care to shore up the small-l liberal voting block. Therefore, this wretched speech.
What I think we can learn from this – just because they are evil denialists, doesn’t mean they lack the skills to manipulate people.
What happened next – the vaunted “Australian Greenhouse Office” was a joke – its boss never even got to brief Howard once. The whole thing fell apart, and Howard did everything he could to slow the growth of renewables too (for example, 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.
References
J Howard, ‘Safeguarding the future: Australia’s response to climate change’, House of Representatives, ministerial statement, Debates, 20 November 1997.
Thirty four years ago, on this day, November 20th, 1991,
On 20th November 1991 a number of countries signed an agreement to take part in a programme of research and development aimed at potential mitigation techniques as a response to the issue of global warming. Formed under the aegis of the International Energy Agency (IEA), the programme brings together those countries interested in establishing the techniques, costs, and environmental consequences of removing CO2 from power station flue gases and storing or otherwise disposing it.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 IEA had been set up in the aftermath of the 1973 Oil Shock. It had held various relatively consequential meetings (it’s all relative) about climate change through the 1980s.
The specific context was that now, with the Rio Earth Summit just around the corner, they were wanting to be an important institutional player in the climate technology game.
What I think we can learn from this – the institutions matter, in terms of where the funding comes from, where the hype from technology enthusiasts can go to get nurtured, given an imprimatur…
What happened next – through the 1990s, CCS kept bubbling under. By 1999-2000 it was beginning to break through.
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.
Sixteen years ago, on this day, November 19th, 2009,
‘If we are to tackle climate change in the years after Copenhagen, it is clear we will need to secure change of an unprecedented scale. The change needs to be very big…. In the United Kingdom we have pledged in law to cut our emissions by 80 per cent. That means we need our electricity and transport systems and homes to be near zero carbon. So we need a dramatic increase in renewable energy – we are planning for a six-fold increase by 2020.’
Ralph Miliband Lecture, 19 November 2009,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. 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 British state had started making all the right noises about climate change from about 2005 (Gleneagles declarations etc etc). There had been the bipartisan “Climate Change Act” of 2008.
The specific context was – Ed was about to go off to Copenhagen, where we were all going to save the world.
What I think we can learn from this – what was that Hamlet said? “Words words words”.
And the success stories, like offshore wind? They happen by accident. Then, the stuff that might reduce energy emissions, i.e. free solar, that happens because Chinese manufacturing capacity is overbuilt. Oh, the ironies.
What happened next- Copenhagen failed. Ed beat his brother David to the leadership of the Labour Party, by the narrowest of margins. Ed then lost the 2015 election, but is now Starmer’s energy guy. Points for tenacity, I guess.
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.
Who are you – where did you grow up, what contact did you have with ‘nature’? (There’s good evidence to suggest that the main determinant of people getting properly switched on to environmental issues is unstructured play with minimal supervision in nature before age 11)
Hello! I’m Marianna Dudley, I’m an environmental historian. I started life in Brazil, spent some early years in Sweden, did most of my growing up in Cornwall, and now live in Bristol. I had a lot of contact with nature as a child: my uncle and aunt had a farm, and I spent a lot of time there watching lambs being born, running around the yard, annoying the sheepdogs, and poking around the pond. If not there, we’d be at the beach. Cornish beaches are unbeatable and I’m definitely happiest bobbing in the Atlantic just offshore of one.
2) A little about your academic background – undergrad what where why, ditto for masters and PhD
Like many History undergraduates, I opted for History because it was infinitely interesting and I didn’t have a career plan. I went to Warwick, because the department had a great reputation and I liked its image as an egalitarian, modern university (unaware at that point that EP Thompson had long ago seen the direction of travel to Warwick University Limited!); in my final year I happened to attend a guest lecture by David Nye, the American historian of energy, technology, and environment. It proved pivotal, introducing me to environmental history, which connected my love of nature and my academic interests. I looked for where I could study it further, which led me to Professor Peter Coates at the University of Bristol. During my Masters, Peter and Tim Cole received funding for a project researching Militarized Landscapes. I joined as PhD student, with Peter and Tim as my supervisors, and Chris Pearson (now at Liverpool) as postdoc showing me the ropes. It was a dream team! I loved the research and writing, and published my PhD thesis as a book shortly after I finished – An Environmental History of the UK Defence Estate, 1945 to the present.
3) In a nutshell (sorry!) what does your book argue, and where did it “come from” – what gaps in the previous understandings was it filling, what ‘myths’ is it overthrowing, or at the least complicating?
Electric Wind: An Energy History of Britain is the first academic history of British wind power, so it fills a substantial gap. It argues that the history of wind energy goes back much further than the modern wind farm, and is more diverse than you might expect. Wind energy has developed alongside, not counter to, other energy systems such as coal, oil, gas, and nuclear, and this has important implications today as we plan for a decarbonised energy system. It also argues that wind energy’s development has been contingent on national and international politics; and that particular ideas and ideologies shaped state and industry involvement. I want the book to show that attention to energy history can enliven current discussions of eg. net zero, which can be repetitive and fail to explore the potential to rethink energy systems along more equitable lines. I also hope it stands as a contribution to modern British history, as it argues that the rise of wind energy is a history of the nation as understood politically, socially, culturally and environmentally. These elements are just as important as the technology, so I am keen to ‘complicate’ top-down technocratic accounts!
4) What were your favourite and least favourite bits of the process? (Are you, like me, an archive monkey?)
I loved the research process for this book, partly because I thought about it for a long time in terms of an energy journey around Britain. It took me to some fascinating places. Like most historians, I love visiting archives, particularly local/regional archives – which I used a lot for this research. But I’m a true environmental historian in that I love field work too – pairing the document record with the landscape, reading the history and getting to know the place as two dimensions of the same inquiry. These are the two sides of historical research for me – the archive and the field. I loved exploring Orkney and the Outer Hebrides in this way for the book; I have a strong memory of driving around Lewis and Harris in a tiny hire car, stopping for roadside scallop baps (!) and swims at perfect sandy beaches en route to interviews with energy activists.
As for my least favourite bits of the process? It was frustrating at times to realise how little industry interest there seemingly was in the history of wind energy. It is, and has always been, a relentlessly forward-looking sector, and I hope this book will show why wind energy’s past is not only worth exploring, but also incredibly useful for shaking up how we think about energy, how it’s produced and who it is for.
5) Who should read it (well, obviously, everyone should) and why? How would it help us make sense of our current and near future dilemmas/trilemmas/quadlemmas?
I wrote this book for anyone with an interest in nature, climate change, landscape, and infrastructure! I try throughout the book to connect global issues of energy and climate with energy as it is experienced on the ground and in everyday life. There can be debilitating overwhelm when it comes to climate action, so I want the stories of communities who effected real change throughout the book to offer narratives of hope and determination. I’d love to get the book on the radar of politicians and policy-makers as it shows how much sustained, socially-engaged policy can achieve – the achievements of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in the post-Second World War period are a brilliant example of progressive infrastructural planning with social good at its heart. I was excited when Labour announced the GB Energy plans, but so far it hasn’t lived up to the hype. Does anyone have Ed Miliband’s address? I’d like to send him a copy! Apparently it has already been recommended to the Parliamentary Knowledge Foundation library, so that’s a great start.
6) What next for you? What’s the next project?
Electric Wind was the work of many years of research, so I’m wary of jumping straight into the next big project. I’m continuing to think about energy, particularly its cultural dimensions; and am interested in unpicking the different threads which fed into the emergent green political movement in Britain in the 1970s. So we’ll see where that takes me!
7) Anything else you’d like to say?
Thanks for the opportunity to tell you more about the book. As well as writing about energy and environment, I spend a lot of my time teaching it. I direct the MA Environmental Humanities programme at the University of Bristol, and am constantly amazed by the breadth of interests and experience that our students bring to the classroom. Join us! https://www.bristol.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/taught/ma-environmental-humanities/
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 414ppm. 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 Boris Johnson had become Prime Minister in July 2019, prorogued parliament illegally and then won the General Election. After shaking hands enthusiastically with people at hospitals, he’d ended up briefly in an ICU. Johnson’s wife-beating father, Stanley, had been aware of the problem of carbon dioxide build-up from the late 1960s, as the Spectator’s environment correspondent
The specific context was that the UK was going to be hosting a COP (first time) and so there had to be SOMETHING to make it look like the green show was still on the road.
What I think we can learn from this is that there can be a nice round-numbered policy document, and some nice graphics, all produced by a department of state. That doesn’t mean it is a strategy, but academics have to pretend that it is.
What happened next – Johnson was undone by a) himself and b) a scandal people could understand. Sunak basically binned “the energy transition” and “Red Ed” is beavering away, but nobody really believes in any of this stuff, do they?
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.
