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]
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.
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
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.
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.
“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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
47 years ago today, the Swedish Prime Minister decides on a referendum
“The nuclear policy controversy came to a head following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Olof Palme, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, had for a long time been a strong supporter of nuclear power and against a nuclear referendum. On April 4, 1979, however, after a week of intense media coverage of the nuclear accident, Palme, afraid of losing more antinuclear supporters to the Center Party in the upcoming September 1979 elections, announced that he was in favor of a nuclear referendum. Within hours the other parties agreed to Palme’s suggestion.” (Lofstedt 1992: 4)
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 Palme had been made aware about climate change from carbon dioxide quite some time ago. In April 1974 he had been briefed on it by Herman Flohn. In November 1974, Palme had spoken about it publicly.
The specific context was that energy politics is always messy!
What I think we can learn from this is that energy politics are always messy. And that some referenda matter more than others.
What happened next:
A non-binding referendum on nuclear power was held in Sweden on 23 March 1980.[1] Three proposals were put to voters. The second option, the gradual phasing out of nuclear power, won a narrow plurality of the vote, receiving 39.1% of the ballots cast to 38.7% for option 3.[2] Option 1 was the least popular, receiving only 18.9% of the votes.[2]
The actual long term result of the nuclear power politics in Sweden after the referendum has been most similar to option 1 which did not change ownership of nuclear power plants. Some were fully private and others owned by the government, and this did not change much. High profits in hydroelectric generation were not excessively taxed. Although some of the nuclear power plants were decommissioned, the Swedish government decided to reverse the policy.[3]
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 since 1977 the Department of Energy had been hosting conferences, famously Miami Beach in March of 77 and commissioning reports about carbon dioxide build up. The Carter administration was “on it” as it were – or the Carter administration wasn’t, but people working in the DOE were. And I think a lot of this is probably down to a nuclear physicist called Alvin Weinberg. Anyway, here we are in April of 79 and the crucial things here are that
Tom Wigley of the Climatic Research Unit was present and presenting.
b) Crispin Tickell, then the consigliere for Roy Jenkins, was present at this meeting. We know this thanks to Tickell’s October 1979 article in Europe magazine.
The specific context was that by 1979 smart people were beginning to “freak out”, in a very measured and contained way.
What I think we can learn from this is that we have known for so long. And done so little (well, made the whole shituation much worse).
What happened next:
Nature ran an editorial in May 1979 that namechecked this conference. The DOE asked people like Schelling to do a report on the societal implications that was released in early 1980 and whatever progress was being made towards tackling the carbon dioxide problem was halted with the coming of the Ronald Reagan gang in January of 1981 and here we are completely fine. Fuck. Risk.
