Month: April 2026

Categories
Science United States of America

April 12,  1968 – brief mention of carbon dioxide build-up in Science

Fifty eight ago, on this day, April 12th, 1968,

12 April 1968. Brief mention of C02 build-up  Hibbard, W. R. (1968). Mineral Resources: Challenge or Threat?: Can technology meet our future needs for minerals and still preserve a livable environment? Science, 160(3824), 143–149. 

doi:10.1126/science.160.3824.143 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that by 1968 intelligent people involved in air pollution, atmospherics etc were well aware of carbon dioxide build up. It had been mentioned by Lyndon Johnson in the beginning of 1965 and in November 1965, the President’s Science Advisory Committee, PSAC had released a report Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, which had an entire chapter on CO2 build up. By 1967 in articles about air pollution in Time and Newsweek and so forth would have a paragraph on the topic.  

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 60s, the dangers were understood. It was not clear if they  would  the potential dangers were understood. It was not clear that they would definitely emerge, if there were competing theories, but knowledge was there.  

What happened next:  We kept ignoring the problem. In 1988 it “broke through” and became an issue. But we mostly continued to ignore 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.

Also on this day: 

April 12, 1955 – Coventry Evening Telegraph – “Melting Ice Could Menace the World” – All Our Yesterdays

April 12, 1992 – seminar asks “How sustainable is Australian Energy?” (proposes switch to gas)

April 12, 1993 – “environmental economics” gets a puff piece

Categories
Australia

April 12 1991 – Hawke’s “Energy Guide” 

Thirty five years ago, on this day, April 12th, 1991, an “Energy Guide”
was released. Here’s the press release…

MINISTER FOR RESOURCES ALAN GRIFFITHS

PIE91/963 5 April 1991

ENERGY GUIDE TO BE LAUNCHED ON APRIL 12

The Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, will officially launch the consumer household hint booklet, the “Energy Guide” on April 12, the Minister for Resources, Mr Alan Griffiths announced today.

Mr Griffiths made the announcement during an opening speech to a workshop organised by Greenhouse Action Australia in Melbourne.

Throughout the speech, the Minister highlighted the need for both household and industry consumers to take responsibility for short term measures which would have an immediate effect  on greenhouse gas emissions.  

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media%2Fpressrel%2FHPR02002063%22

“The energy guide is an intensive educational exercise. It shows how to save energy, save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions without any loss of quality of life,” Mr Griffiths said.

The Energy Guide will be distributed to every Australian household this month.

“If every Australian follows the hints contained in the book, we could reduce our annual output of carbon dioxide by a massive 36 million tonnes each year,” Mr Griffiths said,

“The book is a first for Australia, and recognises us as world leaders in educational campaigns to reduce greenhouse emissions.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australian political elites had been repeatedly warned about carbon dioxide build up, from the late 70s. You had the CSIRO conference in Port Phillip and then the 1980 symposium. These had been reported in places like the Canberra Times, National Party senators had talked about carbon dioxide build up. It was not exactly a state secret. 

The specific context was that in 1988 the issue had exploded into public awareness, thanks also to the CSIRO’s work as made possible by Barry Jones, Minister of Science, who had set up the Commission for the Future. Anyway, Labor Party had won elections in 1983, 1984 and 1987.The 1990 election had looked like a bridge too far, but Labor had squeaked home thanks to small g green voters, and here we see Bob Hawke having to engage with the issue, while also getting a photo op out of it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that this is the sort of light-green, blame-shifting, responsibility-shifting, big-picture-avoiding stuff that politicians love.  

What happened next:  So what we learn is that blame shifting is the name of the game. What happened next? Hawk was toppled a few months later, and all the environmental initiatives were binned by his successor, Paul Keating. 

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

Also on this day: 

April 12, 1955 – Coventry Evening Telegraph – “Melting Ice Could Menace the World” – All Our Yesterdays

April 12, 1992 – seminar asks “How sustainable is Australian Energy?” (proposes switch to gas)

April 12, 1993 – “environmental economics” gets a puff piece

Categories
Activism United States of America

April 11, 2016 –  “Juliana versus US”

Ten years ago, on this day, April 11th, 2010,  

Pre-trial hearings were held in March 2016 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin. The U.S. Department of Justice argued that there was “no constitutional right to a pollution-free environment”, and that the court system was not the proper venue to affect such changes.[12] Coffin ruled in April  (11th) 2016 recommending that both motions to dismiss were denied; Coffin found that while the case was “unprecedented”, it had sufficient merit to continue.[13] 

https://mashable.com/2016/04/11/youth-climate-lawsuit/?europe=true

Juliana vs United States

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that activists have at various times, used laws to force corporations and governments to do things. 

The specific context was that  one of James Hansen’s granddaughters and a bunch of other people had launched a legal case Juliana versus the United States. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there’s no constitutional right to clean air, it turns out, anyway. 

What happened next:  They lost and Trump has removed the endangerment clause, so the EPA is free to do what the EPA wants to do, largely, which is ignore climate change. 

Also on this day: 

April 11th, 1987 – A matter of… Primo Levi’s death

 April 11, 1989 – “Ark” sinks its cred

April 11 – Interview with Sophie Gabrielle about memes vs Armageddon….

April 11, 2014 – Greenpeace China releases coal report – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Interviews

Sherlock Holmes and the Carbonic Acid Affair -“I wrote it as a bet” : interview with John Gribbin

In 1990 the English science writer John Gribbin had just finished the manuscript of “Hothouse Earth”. He… well, I am spoiling the interview he kindly gave about his wonderful “Sherlock Holmes confronts climate change” short story, The Carbon Papers.

[Credit: The Carbon Papers originally published in Analog, January 1990, now available in my collection Don’t Look Back, Elsewhen Press, 2017. Copyright John Gribbin]

John Gribbin

Interview

  1. Tell us about your many books on the atmosphere and weather from the 1970s on, and especially Hothouse Earth.

In the 1980s, I was working as a freelance science writer, mostly for New Scientist, and writing books about climate change, culminating in Hothouse Earth: The Greenhouse Effect and Gaia (1990).  I then drifted away from the field, as it was clear that the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming had been established.

2. How far back do you and Sherlock Holmes go?

I had been introduced to Sherlock Holmes by my then girlfriend (now wife) when I was about 17.  She was and still is an avid fan, who had had a letter published in a Sherlockian fan magazine when she was 10.  So by the 1980s I had read every story.

3. When/how did the idea for “the Carbon Papers” come to you

I was looking for some light relief after a bout of intense work finishing Hothouse Earth, and in those days light relief usually meant writing science fiction.  I was wondering what to write about, and my wife challenged me, along the lines of “I bet you can’t write a Sherlock Holmes story about the greenhouse effect and get it published.”

4. Any recollections on whether it was it easy or difficult to write (in my opinion you capture Doyle’s style very well)?

The story was quite easy to write once I had come up with the basic idea.  I was then (less so now) very familiar with the Holmes canon, so it was straightforward to introduce the plot twist, Mycroft, and the cormorant.  Getting the right “voice” just involved re-reading a couple of stories to get the flow of Conan Doyle in my head.  I am quite good at pastiche.  Whether or not that is a good thing I leave for others to judge.

5. Do you recall any particular reception/responses?

I don’t recall any particular response, the usual polite nod from my Sf friends.  Certainly nobody took it seriously as a message about global warming, which was a bit disappointing. My wife thought (and thinks) it was a bit of fun! I think she was more impressed by it than by my books.

6. Have you re-read it since? If so, what do you think of it now?

I re-read it while proof-reading my collection, Don’t Look Back, and was/am rather pleased with it.  It is unfortunately still topical!

7. How can people keep in touch with your writing?

I have a blog at WordPress (johngribbinscience) which is rather neglected, and my books can always be found on Amazon and similar sites.

8. Anything else you want to say?

In case anyone is wondering if I am the same person who wrote In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat and Science: A History, the answer is yes!  I am proud of having published more than a hundred non-fiction books, but even more proud of having published ten science fiction books.

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

April 10, 1979 – National Coal Board top scientist versus 19th century physics

On this day, 47 years ago,   Joseph Gibson, chief scientist at the National Coal Board, was keen to dampen concern and examination of coal’s global environmental impacts. With palpable glee he wrote a letter on April 10 1979 to the Chairman (Brian Flowers) and the board members.      

“I promised to let Board members have a copy of the IEA report on the greenhouse effect…. The only firm fact so far is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. It is concluded that there is no evidence of a rise in global temperature due to this concentration increase at present.” He then goes on to quote from the work, by Irene Smith – “There is little evidence to support either a complacent or an alarmist attitude…”

(Gibson, J. 1979 Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect. April 10 TNA COAL 30/414)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the National Coal Board had been explicitly aware of carbon dioxide build up since (at the latest) 1972, and was looking for an excuse not to have to do much. And in Irene Smith’s work, they were able to cherry pick what they wanted. 

The specific context was that Gibson was surely aware that in other parts of the British state apparatus an “Interdepartmental Group on Climatology” was about to present a report.

What I think we can learn from this is that people who are comfortable in their own way of thinking find it hard to take new threats seriously until they are staring them in the face. 

What happened next:  The National Coal Board hired some people to do some work on the carbon dioxide work. This was good stuff, but it all kind of didn’t contribute in the way that it could have, not because those people were less than stellar, but simply because the Thatcher governments had other fish to fry. And Thatcher had made it clear herself that she wasn’t going to “worry about the weather”.  

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: 

April 10, 2006 – “Business warms to change” (Westpac, Immelt) – All Our Yesterdays

April 10th, 2010 – activists hold “party at the pumps”

April 10, 2013 – US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

April 9, 2011 –  rally in Brisbane about coal exports

Fifteen years ago today

“Next Saturday it’s time for Queenslanders to let our politicians know that we support Queensland and Australia’s clean energy future – and the many new jobs and business opportunities it will create.

On Saturday 9th at 11am we’re uniting with our friends from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition , GetUp! , Greenpeace , Oxfam , Australian Conservation Foundation , World Wildlife Fund and Union Climate Connectors to support real action against climate change.

It’s time to make the big polluters pay their fair share and unlock Australia’s clean energy future. By acting now we can stay healthy, secure our environment, protect jobs and build new clean industries.

This is a family friendly gathering where we’ll hear speakers who understand the science and we’ll celebrate our positive message for change in Australia.

So come along on Saturday the 9th at 11am in King George Square, bring some mates and take a stand in support of fair and effective action on climate change.”

http://transitionkenmoredistrict.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/rally-for-climate-action-brisbane-april.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Queensland has always been a brutal place for descent of any kind, for. If you’re the wrong skin colour, the wrong sexual orientation, the wrong class, etc.. 

The specific context was that in 2011 the climate issue was still front page news – was especially front page news in Australia. Since late 2006 Australia’s political elites had been wrangling and wrestling with the very idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide – ostensibly in order to reduce Australia’s domestic emissions (actually it was largely about finding ways to continue with business as usual). There was nothing, of course, in this about exports of coal, because that was on someone else’s books

What I think we can learn from this is that an educated populace understands what’s at stake, but does not have the power to force the elected and unelected leaders of society to behave intelligently.

What happened next:  The carbon price was finally instituted. It began operation in July 22,012, but was abolished by Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in 2014 

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: 

 April 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

April 9, 1991 – Peter Walsh goes nuts, urges BHP to sue Greenpeace – All Our Yesterdays

April 9, 2008 – US school student vs dodgy (lying) text books

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

Categories
International processes IPCC Science Scientists

April 8, 1995 – Fred Pearce writes “World lays odds on global catastrophe”….

Thirty one years ago today, New Scientist lays it out…

Fred Pearce article in New scientist about IPCC World Lays odds… 8-4-1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the New Scientist magazine had been going since the late 50s, And in an early issue, it had reported on carbon dioxide build up link and through the 70s and 80s, it had been regularly reported on the topic.   

The specific context was that Fred Piearce had been at the Berlin COP which had just finished, and it was clear that progress was going to be much slower than it had initially been hoped and it needed to be. And Pearce was not stupid, and he was not hopeful about our chances of not being incredibly stupid. 

Pearce has a new book out, btw. Despite It All: A Handbook for Climate Hopefuls

What I think we can learn from this is that a decent science journalist is a relatively good guide to life. 

What happened next:  Well, the COPs are still going, but the emissions have climbed and climbed and climbed and the atmospheric concentrations are now climbing very rapidly, and we are in a world of shit of our own devising. What do we do about it? I don’t know that there is much that we can do. To be honest, why am I doing this? Because I can, because it’s a habit, because I don’t know why I’m doing 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.

Also on this day: 

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate – All Our Yesterdays

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Australia

April 7, 2006 – Howard versus moths and cockatoos …

Twenty years ago today, governments make their usual big empty promises…

On 7 April, two days after the Bald Hills decision, Neil Mitchell of 3AW put the Prime Minister on the spot in relation to a housing project west of Melbourne at Melton, saying ‘there’s a $400 million development out there at risk’ because of the elusive and endangered grassland-dwelling Golden Sun Moth. The Prime Minister was unaware of the moth. Still he promised ‘I will investigate that’. Other stories queried whether the endangered red-tailed black cockatoo would ‘sink a $650 million pulpmill’ in SA, and whether the little known flatback turtle would continue to raise an issue for Chevron’s $11 billion Gorgon gas project off the northwest coast of Western Australia.

(Prest, 2007: 253)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Liberal Party had gone to the 1990 election with a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labor, but this had not won them for the election. Small-g greens had come out for Labor, and the Liberals decided they had been “stabbed in the back” and that all of this was all climate change stuff was a socialist hokum. John Howard, who had become prime minister 10 years before the events described here, had done everything in his power to protect the fossil fuel industry and to quash the growth in renewables and to prevent international action. 

The specific context was that Howard was beginning to look old, beginning to lose his grip. Kyoto had, in fact, finally been ratified by enough nations to come into force, and negotiations for a success and protocol were underway. 

Also, the Australian Conservation Foundation had teamed up with various banks, for example, including Westpac, and released a study with the laughable title “early action on climate change”  that was a couple of days before this. And Howard’s environment minister was maybe not quite as sharp as either of them thought and had managed to create opportunities for people to poke fun. This latest one was the apparent John Howard beginning to not quite be on top of things. We now know that late 2006 was the year that the dam broke and that Howard stopped being invincible and started to look very, very beatable for the 2007 election.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are usually cracks in the dam. Sometimes these cracks just stay there. Other times, with hindsight, you can see that floods about to begin. 

What happened next:  Howard not only lost the 2007 election, but he also lost his own seat.

 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: 

April 7, 1980 – C02 problem is most important issue… “another decade will slip by” warns Wally Broecker to Senator Tsongas

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

April 7, 2010 – Ziggie tries to sprinkle Stardust – 50 nuclear reactors by 2050 – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
On This Day

On this day April 6 – culture wars, business breaking with silence and genetically engineered humans…

The culture wars aren’t going to sustain themselves, you know – there’s gotta be new rage all the time.

 April 6, 2006 – Canadian “experts” (not) keep culture wars going.

Business is beginning to break cover, for what it is worth (not much!)

April 6, 2006 – the anti-climate dam of John Howard begins to crack…

Easier to change our genes than our social and economic priorities, apparently…

April 6, 2012 – Genetically-modified humans? – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International Geophysical Year

 April 5, 1950 – IGY born at a dinner

Seventy six years ago,

The idea for the IGY is said to have taken off at a dinner hosted by the American geophysicist James Van Allen and his wife, Abigail Halsey Van Allen, on 5 April 1950.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that World War Two had set off an astonishing amount of accelerated progress around the ability to travel the world, to measure the world, etc, etc, radar, sonar, jet engines, the promise of satellites, etc. 

The specific context was that the Cold War was on, all these concerns around whether modification etc were live, and a dinner at which the IGY was brainstormed makes a neat starting point and is worthy of further study. If I recall correctly, Fred Singer was present, which is kind of ironic.

What I think we can learn from this is that the longest journey starts with a single step. An avalanche begins with a single rock falling. 

What happened next:   the IGY did take place from July 1, 1957 to December 31 1958 and amidst that awareness of concerns about carbon dioxide build up started to hit the public. For example, the 1958 documentary by Frank Capra, the Unchained Goddess, needs to be seen in that context.

Also on this day: 

April 5, 2005 – Coal21 holds first conference

April 5, 1971- a UK scientist explains “pollution in context”

April 5, 2008 – Charlton Heston dies, star of first movie to mention the greenhouse effect