Categories
International processes Science Scientists

August 30, 2010 – InterAcademy Council report on IPCC

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 30th, 2010,

2010 InterAcademy Council report on IPCC

Microsoft Word – IAC Review of IPCC_prepub.doc 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change had been going on for quite a while. See, for example, the spectacular efforts around the second assessment report and the work of Ben Santer.

The specific context was that in the run up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference of the Parties in 2009 there had been a hack, presumably by Russians or paid Russian hackers of the University of East Anglia’s emails. This was the so-called “Climategate” scandal, an enormous nothing burger where individual comments were taken out of context. Meanwhile, efforts were made to go through all of the IPCC reports and find whatever weaknesses and errors could be found, this all pushed the Inter Academy Council to do an assessment of the IPCC, which was released on this day.

What I think we can learn from this is the attacks on science by people who proclaim the importance of the scientific method and Western civilization, blah blah, are unrelenting, sometimes quite sophisticated, and – for those who want to believe them – quite effective. 

What happened next Attacks on the IPCC still happen, but frankly, the IPCC will go on producing assessment reports until the waters close over our heads, apparently the seventh assessment report is finally going to have some social science in there. Whoopsie do, because most of the social science around climate change that I’ve read is frankly misbegotten, which raises the question, Why aren’t I writing some of it myself, and then heading off to Stockholm for my Nobel prizes?

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 30, 1971 – Bob Carr (ex- NSW premier) ‘gets’ climate change

August 30, 1975 – The Science Show does climate change…

August 30, 1986 – Adelaide warned about climate change by Environment Minister Don Hopgood 

August 30, 1989 – A global tax on emissions?!

August 30, 1990 -Australian diplomats (probably) tried to water down IPCC recommendations

August 30, 1998 – Fourth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies

Categories
United Kingdom

August 29, 1983 – Robin Page, in Daily Telegraph, worries about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty three years ago, on this day, August 29th, 1983, a gardening correspondent points to carbon dioxide build-up in his Daily Telegraph column…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 343ppm. 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 was that newspapers had been reporting on the potential danger of carbon dioxide build up for decades, by this point there was quite a lot of activity in the 1980s, before Hansen’s pivotal 1988 testimony.

The specific context: Here we see someone who is interested in gardening, and therefore the seasons, and when spring arrives, and how long summer is, and how hot it is, etc acknowledging the existence of the greenhouse effect and the potential dangers. 

What I think we can learn from this is that by the early 1980s the greenhouse effect was being acknowledged broadly. It was not particularly controversial. 

What happened next finally in 1988 the scientific problem became a political issue. However, we failed to act in a sane or self-preservation style, and have now condemned ourselves, future generations, and most of the other species on this planet to unimaginable pain and suffering. Homo “sapiens” my extraordinarily fat arse.

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 29, 1981 – New York Times editorial “Heating up the Atmosphere”

August 29, 1990 – The Australian mining and forestry industries threaten to spit the dummy

August 29, 2005 – Hurricane Katrina 

August 29, 2008 – business tells Labor to go softly (Labor then does, obvs).

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 28, 2006 – “National Emissions Trading Taskforce” report released

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 28th, 2006,

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 after two failed efforts to get a carbon tax up in the early 90s, advocates of economics-based action on emissions reductions had turned their attention to an emissions trading scheme. Two proposals had been defeated in John Howard’s cabinet in 2000 and 2003 and thereafter attention had turned to state-based schemes in Australia’s different states, with the possibility of trading between them. 

The specific context was that John Howard was the Prime Minister, was continuing to deride and, wherever possible, block such an effort, especially because it undercut his so-called authority.

What I think we can learn from this is that a policy that is popular, which is not to say would have been particularly effective, will persist, and its advocates will do their best to find other plausible venues, i.e. going through the states rather than the federal government.

What happened next A state-based scheme was supplanted, because in late 2006 it became obvious that Howard was going to have to do a U-turn on the question of an emissions trading scheme if he wanted to stay prime minister. And if he was in fact defeated at the upcoming election (spoiler, he was) then Labor was promising a federal scheme. That federal scheme finally happened from 2012 was then abolished by the next government of Liberal Tony Abbott, and the whole idea of explicit, explicit emissions trading schemes was then defeated.

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 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
Australia

August 28, 1996 – BCA still at it “International Energy and Environment Conference”

Thirty years ago, on this day, August 28th, 1996, “International Energy and Environment Conference”, Sydney, organised by Business Council of Australia.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. 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 the Business Council of Australia, which had been set up in 1983, had played a pivotal role in defeating proposals for effective and progressive ecologically sustainable development in the late 1980s early 1990s. Not through the force of its intellect, but by good old-fashioned lobbying. And BCA and people from the Minerals Council of Australia had also set up the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which had been massively successful in coordinating opposition to the 1994-95 carbon tax. Here we see the BCA keeping the flame alive, because although there is a new government, you can never be too safe.

The specific context was there are federal elections every three years in Australia, and so new Liberal Prime Minister John Howard might crash and burn, and the whole question of carbon dioxide build up and what to do about it might – just might – return. So BCA needs to keep its hand in the game, it needs to keep its networks being constantly refreshed, and it needs to be able to fire warning shots across the bows when required.

What I think we can learn from this a good, as in effective, as in vicious and evil incumbent trade association will be doing stuff like this. It won’t look like much, it won’t scream “evil bastard” at you, but if you know how to read the signs, then you’ll see it for what it is, And you can tell me that words like evil are unacademic and unhelpful and analytic dead ends, and I can say yes, and I don’t give a fuck. Enjoy your career as an asshole. 

What happened next Howard served himself and his rich business mates for another 10 years until being kicked out by the voters both as Prime Minister and as MP. By that time the damage had been done. Would Labour have been particularly different? Well, thanks to Tampa in 2001 we will never know.

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 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
United Kingdom

August 28, 1976 – Talking about the weather must be more than a national pastime.

Fifty years ago today, on August 28th 1976, someone writes some sense in the (pre-Murdoch) Times.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 331ppm. 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 the Times had been reporting on carbon dioxide build up. The first big example I’ve been able to find is around the 1957 IUGG conference. They published a letter the following year from someone called Peter Ball. And The Times had, like all the other newspapers in the late 60s, early 70s, run series on various forms of pollution. 

The specific context was that there was a drought going on in the UK, and a heat wave. The Times had already reported on an earlier World Meteorological Organisation statement about carbon dioxide in the world getting hotter. And here we see the fact, the intriguing fact that Crispin Tickell’s document that he’d written while at Harvard on a sabbatical was circulating in Whitehall, and there was some effort – ultimately unsuccessful – to get policy makers interested in climate.

What I think we can learn from this is that 50 years ago the British state was beginning to think about this stuff. See also John Agar’s paper.

What happened next there was a push to get carbon dioxide discussed. That push was led by people like John Ashton, the chief scientific advisor, who was working within the CPRS. And this led to the climatic change report of 1980 or published in early 1980 but Thatcher and her fellow numbskulls decided that they were not interested, and so the whole issue kind of went back into the undergrowth and it was only revived after much more work by Tickle and other nations getting into 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 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
United Kingdom

August 28, 1959 – Daily Mail reports on carbon dioxide build-up

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, August 28th, 1959,

Fuel fumes trap heat

“Another factor, increasing the heat and the humidity is the development of what is called carbon dioxide pollution of the atmosphere.

Years of burning coal, oil and other fuels have added considerably to this pollution – it has increased by 15 p.c. in our atmosphere in the past 50 years – and its effect is to “trap” the heat from the sun’s rays and heat radiated from the ground.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm. 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 1953 discussion about carbon dioxide build up had been happening in newspapers and scientific meetings. This had been triggered by Gilbert Plass in 1953. He had been building on the work of Tyndall, Arrhenius and Calendar (the work of Eunice Foote was unknown at this time). 

The specific context was that there had been some very hot summers and a Met Office head of research, Veryard was intermittently being asked for his opinion about long-term trends. Veryard had already talked on the BBC about this issue and carbon dioxide build up.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Daily Mail was reporting on this stuff and not losing its mind, but it would eventually, of course, lose its mind. 

What happened next. Veryard would go on to write more, and then it appears he moved over to the World Meteorological Organisation.

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 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
Australia

August 27, 1969 – The Australian tells the truth on pollution

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, August 27th, 1969,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 through the 60s there had been increasing concern about the costs of industrialization. This was especially visible in big cities around air pollution, most infamously Los Angeles. London, Tokyo, and Australian cities, especially Sydney and Melbourne, were concerned that they would end up in the same place. Clean Air Societies were formed, conferences were held, etc. 

The specific context was in 1968-69 “pollution” became the word of the day. This was especially thanks to the Santa Barbara oil shock following on from the Torrey Canyon a couple of years earlier, and then the river in Ohio catching fire, and so forth. So, really, 1969 is the year that pollution starts to take hold, and a cynic might argue that talking about pollution allowed people to talk about their distaste or concern about where America was going without talking about the Vietnam War. Also, in ‘69 the UN Secretary General had made various speeches, and there had been a report following on from the 1968 Biosphere Conference.

What I think we can learn from this is that The Australian used to be a newspaper as well as a propaganda rag. Now it’s just the latter. And propaganda that looks like propaganda is third rate propaganda, but then if you’ve created generations of third-rate educated people, you only need third rate propaganda.

What happened next Everybody started pretending to give a shit about pollution, up to and including John Gorton, the Australian Prime Minister. In May1971 Australia got an Environment Minister, Peter Howson, but the wave kind of fizzled out by 1973 though some people stuck with it, of course.

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 27, 1859 – The Oil Age begins. UPDATED TO BE a) accurate b) less Eurocentric

August 27, 1962 – Mariner 2 sets off for Venus

August 27, 1970 – Sydney Town Hall packed with greenies wanting action.

August 27, 1993 – international negotiations edge forward

August 27, 2013 – absurd claim of Nobel-prize winners’ support for Liberal non-policy is debunked

Categories
Activism

“Climate Camp at 20: what (if any?) lessons

On 26 August 2006, a bunch of self-declared radicals gathered in Yorkshire, close to the biggest point source of carbon dioxide emissions in Europe – Drax coal-fired power station.  In this too brief (too long?) post I reflect on how it came to be, my role (not zero, not huge), what happened next, and what we could learn, if we had any learning capacity.)

How it came to be

From the 1950s the British public were informed about the possibility of carbon dioxide build-up leading to, well, trouble.  This was only occasional, and usually came with “well, there might be an Ice Age, who knows?” caveats.  By the mid-1970s though, the warnings started to come thicker.  However, for good reasons climate change was not a campaigning issue for the various Green groups (the Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace). The 1980s was mostly about trying to keep the maniacs in the White House (not that the Kremlin was exactly sane) from starting a third (and final) world war.  CND, marches, Greenham Common (we will come back to that).  Finally, in 1988, for various reasons, the ‘greenhouse effect’ burst onto the scene and various campaigns got going.  Non-violent direct action on environmental issues got going in the early 1990s, mostly around road bypasses (Twyford, then Newbury).  Meanwhile, there was a ‘Wake Up’ time is running out protest in London.

In March-April 1995 there were protests at the very first Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Climate Treaty, in Berlin.

The roads protests movements of the 1990s broadened to a wider critique of “development” and “capital”, reaching a kind of apotheosis with the J18 protests (or, if you prefer ‘riot’) in the Square Mile.  From that emerged a process – criticised at the time – of ‘summit-hopping’ – of using international meetings of the G7, IMF, World Bank as a hook for ‘action’.  Who got to participate and who didn’t was somewhat elided.  

Climate Change was definitely “in the mix” though – one of the summits “hopped” was the COP-6 meeting in The Hague, where climate activists did all sorts of cool stuff. The “Rising Tide” group was trying – with limited success (not their fault) – to get fellow activists more focussed on the carbon dioxide problem. 

August 16, 2001 – Rising Tide has plenty of ideas

It’s unclear to me how this summit would have turned out – significant and in some cases life-changing violence was dished out to peaceful protestors at Genoa in 2001. 

July 21, 2001 – Sleeping protestors beaten by Italian Police

Would that have had the desired effect of scaring people into silence, raising the costs of ‘recruitment’? We’ll never know, because 911 happened (for the avoidance of doubt – the claims it was an ‘inside job’ have always struck me as ludicrous).

Environmental NVDA types were a bit perplexed for 2002, is my sense. As the attack on Iraq became obvious (really by September 2002), people started talking about direct action against war preparations. And Keir Starmer, then a young-ish human rights lawyer, successfully defended some people who took action (but I digress).

Finally (!). In 2005, the UK was hosting a G-7 meeting, and Prime Minister Tony Blair was desperate to change the conversation from the seeming-Forever War in Iraq.  He chose climate change as the issue to do that (in the same way that David Cameron, as opposition leader, would use environment- and climate – as a way of de-toxifying the Tory brand). But I am digressing again.

So, there were protests, from the ‘fluffy’ stuff through to attempts at spikier stuff at the Gleneagles G-7 summit (there’s an Ian Rankin Rebus novel set at this time, which is quite fun. Right, that’s my last digression (who am I kidding?)

Crucially, though a bunch of people, veterans of the roads protests, were thinking. They sent out an email (which I can’t find) which said, in essence


“Why are we reactive, letting the capitalists decide what we talk about? Why aren’t we (the activists) more active on climate, the number one issue?  We think there should be a Camp for Climate Action in mid-2006, and if you think you want to be involved, come to a one-day meeting in Manchester.”

My role (because, you know, I am so important)

I’d been involved in various things in the late 1990s and for various reasons too boring to write about, had retreated from the ‘spiky’/arrestable stuff in 2001 or so.

I knew nothing of the G-7 discussions until the email hit my inbox.  I had a fairly thick folder of newspaper clippings about climate change from the FT, the Grauniad etc. I’d had a vasectomy in 2004 because I knew that the societal response to climate change would be grotesquely inadequate (I’d thought that since the early 1990s) and that there was serious trouble ahead.

If the meeting had been called for anywhere else except Manchester, I probably wouldn’t have gone and my life would have been very very different, for reasons too boring to write about.

Anywho, I went to the meeting, was impressed by some of the people and decided to get involved, even though I knew it would – within a few years – end in tears (I had a conversation with an acquaintance at the end of the day and she asked why I was going to get involved if I had no hope of ‘success’? I said, probably even more pompously than I remember ‘well, you have to, don’t you?’

Some bits of the next few months are very clear, others I have expunged.  The planning weekends were monthly, in different cities. Attendance hovered around 50 or 60. I thought London (May, I think) would be bigger but it wasn’t. A wise friend said “no smell of victory.” This was profound. People could get involved in, say, stopping a bypass, or keeping GMOs off supermarket shelves with a plausible path to victory. But climate? Come on – five minutes thinking about it and you realise that this is a lost cause, only to be fought by masochists with simple martyrdom complexes and the malcontents.

I look back on the things I do remember and for the most part I wince and cringe at my actions and general deportment. I look back on some things with a sliver of pride – the 

the “Time Up” book, the burnout booklet, and a few others. I loved working with my cartoonist friend Marc..


Anyway, the Camp happened (we will come back to that) though I had thought the odds of the site being occupied were at best 50-50. There were some friendships made, and some near-networks.  

August 31, 2006 – activists try to “Reclaim Power”

There were also many many problems that didn’t get noticed, or were thrown in the too-hard basket – such is the nature of social movement organising.

The interest from the media was unexpected by most, I think.  It was, however, “silly-season” (parliament not sitting, politicians on holiday, still acres of newspaper to be filled), and “hippies whining about climate change” was novel.

The Environmental NGOs sat up and took notice, which was a two edged sword.

And the police and security services… well, we will come back to that.

So, after the Camp everyone was exhausted.  The decisions about ‘what next’, which I had tried to kick off, with very limited impact, were deferred to the next meeting, at the same venue in Manchester.

That was when I really began to have serious doubts about the strategic nous, and trust in process, of key people.  Without re-hashing events that happened literally 20 years ago, there is such a thing as “facipulation” – priming an audience in a certain way and then asking them to make a “free” decision.  And that’s what happened. The needed discussion about whether another Camp was the best way forward for 2007, what the dangers and other possibilities were, was simply not held. It COULD have been, thanks to the choices of some people, in positions of power (anyone who tells you there is no power/authority in so-called ‘non-hierarchical organisations’ is either an idiot or a bald-faced liar. Or perhaps both).

I stayed involved, with more and more misgivings. There were moments I appreciated (thanks to whoever got the Greenham veteran to lead a session in Leeds in early 2007 – that was mint, she was great).  My final straw was seeing how the activists at  Glastonbury 2007. Too boring to write about. I bailed, and started focussing more on local action (Manchester Climate Forum, Manchester Climate Fortnightly, Manchester Climate Monthly. Climate Emergency Manchester what a Gaiadam waste of time).

What happened next

Climate Camp went to Heathrow in 2007. Climate was a hot topic, and the camp was there in London, so of course attendance was much higher (despite bullshit claims, there’d never been more than about 600 people at any one time at Drax. ‘thousands’ my very fat arse).   

The following year, 2008, saw the Camp, by now the typical honeypot for various Trot groupuscules, NGOs etc etc  parked next to a coal-fired power station again, because this was the age of new coal-fired power stations that were going to be “carbon-capture ready.”  Not Ed Miliband’s finest moment – the man does, of course, like his ludicrous technofixes.

That 2008 Camp for Climate Action was pivotal.  The police had decided to take the velvet gloves off, mostly. They intimidated, via searches and photos of all who wanted to attend. They blasted “I fought the law and the law won” on loud speakers in the middle of the night. They briefed journalists that police had been injured (implying it was those dirty violent hippy protestors, knowing a mostly supine media would not ask any questions).

This worked – I remember a Manchester activist full of guilt and shame because she couldn’t face the intimidation and threatening behaviour that went with participating in the Camp.

Meanwhile, a couple of months later – The Climate Change Act was passed (props to Friends of the Earth – they threw everything they had at it, lobbyingwise.  They got a little lucky (Cameron needing a re-branding issue), but without FoE’s expertise and heft, I don’t think the CCA would have been anywhere near as ‘strong’ as it was [To be clear, we’re utterly toast, my 2004 vasectomy was the right choice. But within the context of the ‘possible’, the CCA was an achievement.]

As far as I could tell, from distance, a lot of the 2006 crew had gotten fed up/burnt out and by 2009 the “Climate Camp” brand was in new, and slightly weird hands. It was held on Blackheath, in London (so, the South dominates again, and again).

2009 was dominated by the upcoming “last chance to save the world” COP to be held in Copenhagen.  Despite the fact that “Camp for Climate Action” had started with an explicit critique of ‘summit-hopping’, off people went. Meanwhile, a march in London that all the NGOs had spent the year begging people to attend attracted a relatively paltry 50 thousand (“the Wave” – got help us).

2010 was nail in coffin time, as you’d expect for a social movement wave (people can only put the rest of their lives on hold for so long, sustain the myth of progress for so long, before they say ‘so long’ to forever comrades).

The Copenhagen debacle meant that a lot of people Lost Hope (srsly, fuck ‘hope’). The media stopped paying attention to the whole issue, not just “hippies in a field want social change”.  The first climate camp north of the Watford Gap since 2006 was a bust.  And then came the revelation that key players in the social movement organisations that had given us roads protests, ‘anti-globalisation’ and, yes, climate camp, were, in fact, deep cover police.

“Awks,” as the kids used to say, briefly.

It’s in that context that the cringe “Metamorphosis” statement emerged from a meeting in early 2011. Climate Camp was dead. Long live… er… er.. Reclaim the Power?

Reclaim the Power tried to stop a new wave of gas-fired power stations, using many of the techniques refined during the Climate Camp era.  Brave people, putting their bodies and liberty on the line. Meanwhile, other people threw themselves into stopping fracking, with more success.

In 2015 there was a (failed) attempt at using yet another COP to “kickstart” the UK climate movement. 

In 2016 there was an activist zine on “Drax ten years on.”  Full disclosure – I was invited to write a piece, and I did. If I can dig it out I will. But the zine was not, in my opinion, a success – many of the key questions that needed asking were not even asked.

See also – Hope, false hope, stupid hope and #climatechange: From Paris to Extinction (Rebellion)

In the second half of 2018 “Extinction Rebellion” came along.  Combined with the school strikes, the IPCC’s “1.5 degrees” report and Greta Thunberg’s school strike (a highly emotive and easily replicated new repertoire), this gave us the latest ‘Big Wave’. 

One observation – during that period you could talk to ‘heavily involved’ XR types who would look at you blankly when you said “Climate Camp.” For the young ones, that was understandable – they had been 8 or 9 or whatever. For those fire-breathers in their 50s and 60s it was, I think, an uncomfortable topic, because it put the lie to the notion that nobody had ever tried to act on climate. These people had, for whatever reason, chosen not to get involved over a decade earlier. Some were quite desperate to ‘make up for lost time’, which, er, you can’t do…

Even before COVID, though, there were real signs that all was not well. I have written about that to death, and if I can be bothered will post some links below.

Extinction Rebellion says ‘we quit’ – why radical eco‑activism has a short shelf life

Attempts to keep the flame alive with Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil [see Just Stop Oil – anthropologically fascinating but politically terrifying] have not worked. The State has responded, predictably, with ever more draconian laws and judicial smack-downs.

Now and tomorrow?

I think the shituation is truly desperate (duh).  We seem to have wasted the last good chances to get our shit together.  The future looks unutterably bleak, and I mean the near future, not “2050”.  What irritates me the most is that we seem incapable of learning any lessons about anything much. I keep trotting it out, but only because it’s true; if Groundhog Day involved Phil Connors reliving the same day over and over and never learning anything, it would not only be not a comedy, it would be an unwatchable tragedy.

What we could learn

Actual Movement Building is really really hard.  

It’s easy to proclaim, much much harder to do.

See here – Mobilisation versus Actual Movement Building – All Our Yesterdays 

It starts (but does not end) with holding meetings, film showings etc that are actually engaging rather than disempowering for all but the organisers and their acolytes. 

Meetings, Gatherings or… “Fodderings”? 

How I’d design a film showing and discussion | manchester climate monthly 

It continues with figuring out how to share skills, knowledge, to thicken relationships among individuals and groups, especially facing bits of “civil society” that are not explicitly ‘campaign-y/NGO’.

It continues with having functional groups that can sustain themselves, and make common cause on related issues, and identify leverage points where both policy but ALSO broader social/economic/cultural change might take place.

It needs organised labour, but the trouble is many of the existing organisations (trade unions) are horrifically complicit and sclerotic.

Transmission belts of ‘activist tradecraft’ are fragile.

There is a lot of wheel reinvention (this is not to say that Climate Camp was particularly great at designing and facilitating meetings, either internal or public facing.  Some were okay, but for the most part nothing was innovated, learnt, retained, and it was all quite excruciating). But starting from scratch is disastrous.

The pendulum swings

If you aren’t building a group that can survive when the streets empty and the media circus moves on, then you aren’t building anything but your own mausoleum.

The State is far more interested in you than you realise. 

Spycops. Not just a job creation scheme for perverts and sadists. Crucially – that first camp (and the others) was allowed to happen.  The ‘take the site’ thing in 2006 was choreographed by the police, who knew more than enough to stop it, thanks to their undercovers. It was useful to them to allow the Camps in 2006 and 2007 to go ahead.  In 2008 something changed – I don’t know what – maybe the politicians said “enough” or the cops themselves had no more use for the theatre, but they basically stopped it. 

Er, …that’s it. It’s Cocker Protocol Time, people.

I’d be interested to hear other people’s takes on all this, especially folks who were there.


Further reading

I’ve read a few academic articles about climate camp, but none that struck me as either insightful or useful.  So I ain’t linking to them. If you think you have one that’s particularly good, do chime in.

I’ve not been particularly looking for other “what next for the climate movement?” blogs, and if you think you have one that’s particularly good, do chime in.

Meanwhile, my GAIA I have wasted the best (sic) years of my life writing stuff that hardly anybody reads and even fewer try to act on.  Cher, incentive structures and our inevitable doom 

 What a waste. I am genuinely embarrassed for myself. 

Extinction Rebellion says ‘we quit’ – why radical eco-activism has a short shelf life 

“If we don’t tend to our relationships with each other, this isn’t going to work” or DIGGERS!

Feeding the trolls – of XR, ad hominem abuse and the Kool Aid

2019: How we blew it, again | Peace News 

Dear ‘new’ #climate activist. Unsolicited advice, #oldfartclimateadvice 

“There’s a hole in my movement, dear Liza…” (aka “caught in a trap, can’t walk out…”) 

 A coda on AI

This is gibberish.  For the love of Gaia, do not rot your brain (and poison the well of public discourse) by using thirsty plagiarism machines. I implore you.

Categories
Soviet Union United States of America

August 26, 1989- American and Soviet scientists call for  “environmental security alliance” to combat “catastrophic warming”

Thirty-seven years ago, on this day, August 26th,1989,

“Top Soviet and American scientists, environmentalists, policymakers, industry leaders and artists today urged President Bush and President Mikhail S. Gorbachev of the Soviet Union to form an “environmental security alliance” to reverse what they fear could be a catastrophic warming of the planet.”

“The gathering urged that the superpowers promote energy-efficient technology and phase out production and use of clorofluorocarbons no later than the year 2000. The group said the countries should “substantially reduce” carbon dioxide emissions, reduce the loss of forests and promote tree planting world wide. Participants asked that the two leaders appeal directly to their citizens to help.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 Soviet scientists had been talking about carbon dioxide build-up for as long as American ones, pretty much (it’s only 19th century physics, after all).  

The specific context was that Gorbachev had taken over the boss job in 1985, and his “pereistroika” and “glasnost” quickly ran up against various awkward realities around the culture the Bolsheviks had created, the lagging behind the US etc (so much for “we will bury you”). He was also spectacularly unlucky – Chernobyl basically killed it all off, though the whole thing staggered on for a few more years.  Anyway, in 1988 the Soviet top diplomat had been suggesting a kind of one world Eco-government body. That did not fly, obvs.

What I think we can learn from this is that the scientists knew what was at stake, how quickly action needed to happen.

What happened next  – in the second half of 1991, the Soviet Union finally disintegrated, gone like a fist when you open your palm.  

Meanwhile, the problem of carbon dioxide emissions (it’s broader than that, obvs) continued to grow…

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

Xx

References

Reinhold, R. 1989. Summit of Sorts on Global Warming. New York Times, August 27.

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 26, 1965 “Climatic Change appears to be underway, in fact.” – the 1965 commencement speech that should have rocked the world.

August 26, 1970 The Alkali Inspector’s report

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

August 26, 1991- We cannot delay says Brundtland

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

August 26, 2006 – First “Climate Camp” begins

Categories
Australia

 August 26, 1997 – Germans versus Australians…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 26th, 1997,

The “holier-than-thou” Germans became “very angry” over Australia’s controversial proposals on how the world should fight climate change, according to confidential Federal Government “greenhouse papers” obtained by the Herald.

Hogarth, M. 1997. Germany ‘angry’ On Clean Air Target. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 August, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 slipped from being a responsible middle power 1988 to 1990 to an active, very active opponent of climate action.

The specific context was here we see in the run up to the Kyoto Climate Conference, at which rich nations were supposed to bring their plans for significant emissions reductions, as per the Berlin mandate, and the Germans pointing out the facts, which is that the Australians were behaving like utter assholes. Criminal stock indeed.

What I think we can learn from this is that Australian governments since the very early 90s have been criminal. They have disregarded the rights of future generations of humans and other species to anything approaching a habitable planet, and they have done this because they are basically the meat puppets for a bunch of extractivist goons. And you can dress it up however you like, and you can make good money and/or good career in dressing it up, but ultimately you’re dressing it up.

What happened next Australia extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto conference, and then refused to ratify. By the time Australia did ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2008 it was a dead letter. The balance sheet kept breaking up the sky.

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 26, 1965 “Climatic Change appears to be underway, in fact.” – the 1965 commencement speech that should have rocked the world.

August 26, 1970 The Alkali Inspector’s report

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

August 26, 1991- We cannot delay says Brundtland

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

August 26, 2006 – First “Climate Camp” begins