Month: August 2026

Categories
Neologisms

Another neologism – “Melt-schmerz”

Here’s a new, slightly light-hearted, neologism about a very NON-light-hearted topic.

Meltschmerz (Hudson: [ˈmɛltʃmɛɐ̯ts] ⓘ; literally “melting-pain”) is a Fafocenic concept describing the feeling experienced by individuals and groups  who believe that reality, specifically physics, is about to punch them in the face very hard,[y][oh y] resulting in “a mood of weariness or bowel-loosening terror about life arising from the acute awareness of atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up and the present and future suffering”.

It is a riff on weltzschmerz, obvs.

Categories
Canada Denial

August 12, 2006 – Canadian press platforming idiots

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 12th, 2006,

August 12 2006 Globe and Mail “meet Mr Cool” article by Charles Montgomergy, about Tim Ball.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, 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 climate was back on the agenda because of the ratification by Russia of Kyoto, the EU emissions trading scheme, and especially Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth. And so, as sure as night follows day, the denialists were being given puff pieces and free air time, because, in part of journalistic “balance”, see balance as bias, but also because the people who own the networks and the newspapers want it that way, (it’s never just one thing, or very rarely)

What I think we can learn from this is that empty suits who were saying things that are useful for the millionaires and billionaires will get lots of free air time, and that many journalists are basically stenographers to power with delusions of integrity and competence.

What happened next Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. Its emissions continue to skyrocket, thanks to the tar sands, and, like Australia, it is suffering the physical consequences of climate change faster than other nations. And of course, the people and species suffering those consequences tend to be the ones who didn’t cause it. Well, certainly the other species.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

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).

Also on this day: 

August 12, 1970 – US Senate warned about climate change 

August 12, 1990 – Channel 4 shows crackpot documentary “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” 

August 12 2003 – French heatwave 

August 12, 2009 – Deutsche bank enters modelling war in Australia 

August 12, 2010 – BZE launches energy plan for Australia 

Categories
Uncategorized

“Weather records no longer exist” by Sybrand Frietema de Vries

By Sybrand Frietema de Vries, expert in collective local energy solutions based in Fryslân. First published in Dutch newspaper Friesch Dagblad, December 11, 2020.

November was a delightful month in the Netherlands. Remarkably warm, with few storms and considerably drier than usual.

Newspapers published photos of people out for a walk, enjoying the chance to escape the confinement of staying indoors. Accompanying articles discussed—with undisguised delight—a number of temperature records. A November month had never been quite so pleasant before.

It seems as though meteorologists have taken on a new daily task: reporting yet another new weather record. And not just this past November, and not just in the Netherlands.

This year, rainfall records were set in several countries simultaneously over short periods. The number and intensity of storms in the Atlantic Ocean reached unprecedented levels this hurricane season. Entire continents were plagued by unprecedented drought or extreme heat—or both. 

Every year, we revel in records. This is what we want to hear, read, and see in competitions. Records align with our own local expectations and easily transcend borders and cultures. Their measurability is convenient and universally understood; sometimes the numbers alone speak volumes: Inzell, 14:55.9. (And for those to whom that doesn’t resonate: in 1971, Ard Schenk was the first to skate the ten-kilometer race in under fifteen minutes. On an outdoor track.)

But there is one type of record we must unfortunately bid farewell to: the weather record. The trend line tracing the highest temperatures keeps rising. The number of severe storms and downpours is steadily increasing. The area of ​​forest lost to fire grows consistently larger each year. We are forced to conclude: there are so many weather records that, effectively, they no longer exist.

After all, you don’t note on a weekly basis that your growing teenage son has set a new ‘height record.’ No, he is simply growing..

The climate crisis has triggered irreversible weather trends. Our planet is warming up. As a result, we are facing extreme weather phenomena that are largely unfamiliar or poorly understood. When we measure these and compare them with past centuries, the picture doesn’t fit. Our brains try to frame them using familiar concepts—like averages or maximums—but that doesn’t work.

It is a bitter pill, but we must stop thinking in terms of “normal” and “records.” We need to learn to recognize new weather trends and adapt our surroundings to unfamiliar extremes.

Fortunately, that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy beautiful autumn or winter weather. We certainly should.

All rights reserved, published with permission of the author.

With thanks to Merien ten Houten and Sybrand Frietema

Categories
Activism

Of misfortune cookies and newspaper headlines in the Fafocene

There was a play by Susan Sontag, back in the day, called Alice in Bed.  It was about the life of Alice James, sister of Henry.  Within it was a riff, about how any fortune cookie – “you will meet a mysterious stranger who brings peril”  or “ a friend will supply much needed joy” etc – can be immeasurably improved by adding the words “in bed” at the end.

Well, that’s one set of emissions sorted.  Now for the Fafocene.

If you’re reading this site at all regularly, you surely already know, but for any newbies, this: From here on, alongside breaking hearts and breaking ecosystems, we’re gonna be breaking a lot of weather “records”. The hottest day, the longest drought, the biggest firestorm, whatever.

These will get coverage while we still have newspapers and news outlets because if it bleeds it leads, and there will be a lot of bleeding.  That is bleeding obvious.

So what I propose is that whenever you see one of these stories, you do a Simpsons meme on it and add “SO FAR” at the end in big red friendly letters.  Here’s a worked example.

It would be better if someone makes a meme generator that automates this process, maybe? Idk.

Categories
Italy

August 11, 2021 – Syracuse boils…

Five years ago today, August 11 2021, what was the hottest day in Europe (so far) 

The maps show temperatures in southern parts of Portugal could reach a staggering 50C on July 28 – which would be the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe. The current European temperature record is 48.8C, registered near the city of Syracuse in Sicily on August 11, 2021. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/weather-heatwave-spain-portugal-europe-37451862

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 417ppm. As of 2026, 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 with the coming of the industrial revolution we added to the existing issue of deforestation with a NEW way of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. GO US, the planet trashing hairless murder apes.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have little or no interest in our own futures. We seem to be operating on the assumption that a Deus or a Machina will descend to save us.

What happened next. We kept adding 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, with entirely predictable consequences.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

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).

Also on this day: 

August 11, 2005 – Bob Brown in the Senate 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut) 

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe” 

Categories
Australia

August 11, 1999 – Australian Senate calls for a report on climate

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, August 11th, 1999,

On 11 August 1999 the Senate referred the following matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August 2000 (which was later extended to 8 November 2000): (what became Nov 2000 “The Heat is On” report

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2026, 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 if you were paying attention, you could see that the domestic and international policies around climate change were heading in a bad direction. Although the Kyoto Protocol had been signed, and even by various nations, its actual ratification and passage into international law was looking shaky, and scientists were saying it wouldn’t be enough. By this time, you had Green senators and the Democrats in the Australian Senate whowere also on the case and they used the usual procedures to get a report to be written. Sometimes senate reports can be really consequential and influential, especially when an issue is new – for example, the 1968-69 Senate Standing Committee on Air Pollution and also the one on Water Pollution; they were influential. This one not so much, but what do you expect, it’s a crowded field by now.

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians do what politicians can within parliament. If you really want to see social change, it’s parliament yes, but it’s Parliament Plus, it’s all of the social movements and the civil society groups. But they can rarely get their game faces on for any length of time, and anyway, they’re up against incredibly powerful, clever, determined, well-resourced incumbency actors. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next it would be 2006 before climate change became “an issue” in Australian politics. Not that this helped particularly.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

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).

Also on this day: 

August 11, 2005 – Bob Brown in the Senate 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut) 

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe” 

Categories
United Kingdom

August 10, 1970 – A letter about the “International Scientific Academy for the Protection of Life, for Environment & Biopolitics”

Fifty six years ago, on this day, August 10th, 1970,

Refers to the appeal made at the Lindau meeting of Nobel Laureates for help with restoration and maintenance of a healthy environment. Invites Bragg to join the international forum as a co-founder; comments on this. Would welcome evidence of Bragg’s interest even if Bragg cannot give his active co-operation.

Date: 10 Aug. 1970

Held by: Royal Institution of Great Britain, not available at The National Archives

International Scientific Academy for the Protection of Life, for Environment & Biopolitics (H.A.Schwiegart) to [Lawrence Bragg]

Reference: W.L. BRAGG/32F/1

Title: International Scientific Academy for the Protection of Life, for Environment & Biopolitics (H.A.Schwiegart) to [Lawrence Bragg]

Description: Luxembourg

2/3 page, duplicated

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been a brief, a brief flurry of concern in the late 40s about the ecological consequences of population growth and modern and industrialization, but this had been tamped down, more broadly as part of the whole McCarthyist wave. The groups that would have critiqued industrialism were too busy fighting off attempts to destroy them and deport them, and so forth.

The specific context was that it was only when the New Left had been going for a few years that you really got ecological critiques from people like Murray Bookchin (the liberal version of this, was Rachel Carson). Then, from 1968-69 onwards, a more broad critique of the consequences of industrialization and population growth became tolerably well-known and tolerated within mainstream circles, some of it quite worrying in its implications. Anyway, two years before the Limits to Growth here we see a whole bunch of scientists saying, “look, this is really serious.”

What I think we can learn from this is that history “remembers” specific documents and “disregards the rest,” to quote Paul Simon.

The job of a historian is to try to give context to people, events, and so forth, you can overdo that as well.

Also, this letter would be a useful thing to point out to the critics of limits of growth, and so forth, when they try to talk about that book, that report, in isolation from all the other concerns, as if it was only that book making the case.

What happened next. These sorts of warnings and reports, which had already happened in 1969 just kept coming, kept being ignored, kept coming, kept being ignored. The emissions climbed, the atmospheric concentrations climbed, the list of extinct species climbed, and of course many species were never discovered in time to be on the list before they were wiped out by the consequences of human activity.

As Kurt Vonnegut said, “so it goes.”

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

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).

Also on this day: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2000 – States’ greenhouse gas failure 

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles… 

August 10, 2021- climate protest with burning pram… 

Categories
Australia

August 10, 2001 – Major Australian parties tell OECD, future generations to get fucked

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2001,

CANBERRA, Aug 9 AAP – An OECD call for Australia to introduce environment taxes was today ruled out by the government and opposition despite support from rural backbenchers.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s latest report showed that Australia’s economy was faring well, and that a carbon tax would be a cost-effective way to benefit the environment.

“Setting up a trading scheme or a carbon tax of broad sectoral coverage is the most cost-effective way to achieve emissions reductions,” the OECD report said.

Environment Minister Robert Hill branded the call Eurocentric, saying the government was instead focused on building economic growth with a low-tax environment.

“We’re not going to impose another tax,” Senator Hill said.

The government wanted strong economic growth built on a low tax environment, low interest rates and low inflation, he said.

A business/environmental roundtable comprising the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Southcorp, Elders Ltd, ABN Amro, Berri Ltd and CSIRO today called for tax breaks to encourage investment in the environment.

McSweeny, L. 2001. Fed – Major parties reject OECD call for environment tax. Australian Associated Press, 10 August

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2026, 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 Australia had very briefly in 1988 to say 1990 professed to take a positive proactive position as a middle power on environmental issues, including climate. But that was never deep seated, and by 1991 the tune coming out of Canberra and state capitals was changing, because well, Who pays the piper calls the tune, and who pays the piper are the extractive industries.

The specific context was that in 1997 the Australian federal government had extorted a very generous deal at the climate conference in Kyoto. And it was looking like they would still not ratify it, and it was looking like they still wouldn’t have anything approaching an emissions trading scheme or any price on carbon dioxide. There had already been one cabinet proposal in 2000 defeated thanks to the machinations of South Australian Senator Nick Minchin. So the OECD had said, “look, you guys really need a carbon tax to incentivise energy efficiency and technological innovation and so forth” and both the major political parties turned around and said the OECD and future generations can get fucked. In essence that’s what they said, and they meant it, and they still mean it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that democracy only works if you have an educated population that is capable of forming its own groups, which cannot be co-opted, repressed, and exhausted by the state and the corporate sector. And in the absence of an educated populace that can do that, in the absence of a genuinely independent and inexhaustible civil society, you end up with “demonstration elections” and a more or less rapid descent into the maelstrom in the Edgar Allan Poe sense of it, but without the happy ending.

What happened next – Australia got a carbon tax – after astonishingly bloody political battles – for a year and a bit (2012-2013) until the next government that came along axed it.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

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).

Also on this day: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2000 – States’ greenhouse gas failure 

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles… 

August 10, 2021- climate protest with burning pram… 

Categories
Andy Burnham United Kingdom

The silence is the message: Burnham’s deafening silence – why, what it tells us and what comes next? 

Update: On 14 August I wrote a follow up post.

Andy Burnham became Prime Minister almost three weeks ago. There were various quick policy announcements, but on the number one issue, the only one that will matter 20 years from now, it has been all crickets and tumbleweeds (as noted by the Ash Sakars of the world)

In this short blog post I will speculate on why that is (but what would I know?), talk about Burnham’s management of the climate issue while Mayor of Greater Manchester, and conclude with some speculation about where it all might go.

Why the silence?

I have two guesses (not mutually exclusive) as to what might be lying behind the silence.

Primarily, Burnham may simply be keeping his powder as dry as a London park.  He may be waiting for Labour Party conference where he can make some big soft-or hard green splashes, and make the disgruntled Greens who have been slagging him off for all of August look petulant and immature. Rope-a-dope, as Muhammed Ali had it all those years ago.


Alternatively, the lack of any public position might be because there are some really fierce battles going on about whether to approve Rosebank or not (doing this would end up bleeding credibility and putting wind back in the sails of the Green Party? Not doing this would piss off the nutters).


Maybe there are third and fourth options too, besides it being deliberate or the consequence of a fiercely divided inner circle. 

Burnham’s back story.

I saw Burnham turn up at least one of the “Youth Strike” events held in front of Manchester Central Library in 2019, and give a boilerplate speech. He has undeniable “star quality”, and the naive young activists were eating out of his hand. 

I saw Burnham at one of the Mayor’s Green Summits (probably 2021? idk) and he was a slick performer, knowing what the audience wanted and giving it them. They were so relieved that a ‘senior’ politician would say words, that they turned off what critical faculties they had.  It was demoralising af, before you took into account the various academics willing to be his figleaf in exchange for REF points.

But the real Burnham example I’d want to push, I wasn’t there for that.  But someone whose judgement I trust was there, and she wrote an article for the blog I ran – “Manchester Climate Monthly.”  In July I included a portion of that in a letter I sent to the Financial Times (they didn’t publish it, more fool them). 

What does it mean, this silence

It means that Burnham doesn’t – despite whatever people want to project onto him – really “get” climate change. He doesn’t understand that the usual triangulation, the usual appeasement is not going to work.  He is out of his depth (but then aren’t we all- we have, by ignoring the warnings from scientists for forty years, in uncharted waters which are getting stormier by the day, with new depths to plumb).

It means we will not, of course, get the leadership we need.  Ed Miliband is probably crying himself to sleep nightly. So it goes. 

Where will it all end?


Sooner or later Burnham is going to have to say SOMETHING about climate change.  Indefinite silence and dodging is not an option.

Between now and the Labour Party conference there are the possibilities of nasty extreme heat events (deaths of white people, wildfires) that might require more than the usual handwringing, pearlclutching and calling of COBRA meetings. But then again, there may not.

When he does say something

He will either get monstered by the “right” media outlets (well, no matter what he does, he will get monstered by them) as a crazed eco-lefty.

He will be cautiously given the benefit of the doubt by ‘centrist’ and ‘moderate’ types.

He will “disappoint” the “left” and put renewed wind in the sails of the Green Party – their membership will go up further (and overtake that of Labour, fwiw – it didn’t matter for Corbyn when he hit 500k, back in the day). 

Meanwhile, global emissions will continue along at roughly 40bn tonnes a year. The atmospheric concentrations will continue to gallop (two or three parts per million per year. Some year soon we will hit four). The Fafocene will continue to unfold like a bad (well, ordinary) Michael Bay movie.  

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

August 9, 2008 – Mass action at Kingsnorth

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 9th, 2008, at the third UK “Climate Camp” a mass action took place.

(source)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. As of 2026, 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 from the early 1990s, non-violent direct action had been taking place on environmental issues (Twyford Down, Newbury etc). By the early 2000s Rising Tide was protesting – COP 6 in the Hague, etc etc. At the G7 protests in 2005 a bunch of people pointed out that summit-hopping was not the way forward, and that climate change was not getting the necessary treatment. This led to the first climate camp, in 2006.

The specific context was the climate movement, and the ‘alternative’ protest scene more generally, was riddled with undercover cops and so forth.

Meanwhile, there is a fairly limited number of repertoires available in these sorts of situations. The Kingsnorth mass protest drew heavily on 1999’s J18 stuff – different coloured masks etc etc.

What I think we can learn from this – we’re doomed.

What happened next this was the high water mark, pretty much for Climate Camp. People went and summit hopped Copenhagen after the nice cuddly Blackheath Climate Camp of 2009 despite the fact that Climate Camp had been predicated on not summit hopping. See also, my XR, we quit statement, 

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

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).

Also on this day: 

August 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper 

August 9, 1999 – The Australia Institute calls for emissions trading 

August 9, 2000 – a new Greenhouse Strategy – including on LNG. Yeah, yeah sure

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away… 

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)