The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Putin wanted to throw his weight around and planting the flag on the Arctic seabed was a good “strongman” gimmick. The Arctic was, as long predicted, warming quickly, and literally changing the map of the world. Resources, wars, land-grabs, the usual stuff…
What I think we can learn from this is that the Westphalian system (created at the end of the 30 years war) is a failure, We have known that the tensions about borders and the “Law of the Sea”/”Law of the atmosphere” have been growing and growing. We’d seen it with acid rain then with ozone than with climate.
What happened next
The Arctic kept melting. People kept exploring for oil. Greenpeace got arrested. And Putin? Putin kept being a quality human being.
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.
Given the current battle over “Net Zero” and the Conservative Party, I thought this might be illuminating.
So, on 18 November 1979 the Sunday Times reported that
“leaked Cabinet papers record the Government’s efforts to ‘reduce oversensitivity to environmental consideration'(The Sunday Times, 18 November 1979). ” (Lowe and Morrison, 1984: 86)
I don’t have digital access to The Sunday Times, sadly. But I do have access to the Times. And on October 6 1984, (on page 8, since you ask), there’s an article by one Tony Paterson (then the parliamentary liaison officer for the Bow Group) titled “Why the true blues must go green.” We learn
Characteristic of this outlook was the recommendation of the Government within weeks of the 1979 election triumph by Sir John Hoskyns, then head of Mrs Thatcher’s Downing Street Policy Unit, to reduce its “oversensitivity to environmental considerations” in planning decisions. Because it heeded this and similar advice, millions of conservationists have come to regard the Conservative Party, environmentally, as no more than a watchdog which barks when kicked – even though, philosophically, it can claim to be the natural party of conservation.
Who was John Hoskyns? Interesting chap. Came out of the military, set up businesses. According to the font-of-all-knowledge Wikipedia
“Without any political experience, Hoskyns dedicated most of the year 1977 to analysing what was wrong with Britain. This work formed a large part of the “Stepping Stones Report”, published together with Norman S. Strauss, a business executive from Unilever, in November 1977, created for the Conservative Party, then in opposition. The report included a diagram showing how the problems it identified were interlinked.”
So, another of those sort of “Mandate for Leadership” efforts (the Heritage Foundation in the US were presumably taking note?). It didn’t go so well for Hoskyns –
In March 1982 Hoskyns resigned from the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS), frustrated by the slow pace of change,[7] including the refusal to appoint certain people to the CPRS, on the grounds that it was a non-political body.
Oh, and Hoskyns? He was someone Dominic Cummings (remember him?) spoke of as an example of how to shake things up. See this rather interesting 2020 column by Andy Beckett.
What do we learn?
I think we learn four things, in decreasing order of interest to other people.
This current battle in “defence of Net Zero” is only the latest skirmish (albeit a mildly consequential one ) in the long long battle between – well, let’s not mince our words – economic growth and a habitable planet. My money is on growth, all the way up to us not having a habitable planet no more (sooner than you might think, I think).
Egregious decision-making like this tends to get leaked by outraged civil servants (or even politicians) – see also the May 2004 meeting of the “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” called by Australian Prime Minister John Howard, in which he asked for fossil fuel companies for help in crushing the renewable energy scheme that he had been forced to introduce. Somebody, disgusted, leaked those minutes and they appeared in October 2004.
The July 1979 kicking around of the “whybother even publishing this climate report?” discussion between (at least) Angus Maude and Keith Joseph (another Thatcher enabler) should be seen in that context.
Forty three years ago, on this day, August 1, 1980, The Wall Street Journal ran a seriously good report on the problem of climate change. It included professors (inc David Rose) and also the view from trade bodies like the National Coal Association. You will be shocked, shocked to learn that they were not sold on the idea that their product was gonna create global chaos… And here we are…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures.
The context was that more and more scientists were coming out and saying carbon dioxide was going to be a serious factor in climate change. There had been the NAS report in 1977, but more recently, the First World Climate Conference, the Charney report and the G7 meeting in Tokyo, and the Global 2000 report.
So it’s unsurprising that the business press, (the Wall Street Journal fancies itself as the equivalent of the Financial Times but it’s not even close, would want to cover the issue). What’s a little surprising is just how good the article was. There’s a lovely dismissive quote from the coal lobby.
What I think we can learn from this is (1) as ever, if you really want to understand what’s going on in the world, quality business press is the way forward and (2) that the National coal Association was all over the issue. Of course they were.
What happened next
Three months later, Jimmy Carter lost the presidency and America and the world lost the momentum though it continued to some extent in Europe.
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.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak appears to be wobbling on the “Net Zero” that a previous Conservative Prime Minister but three – that’s Theresa May, in case you’d lost count – got through parliament with barely a cough of disapproval back in 2019. Sunak is mumbling about “proportionate and pragmatic response”, at the same time that British holidaymakers are having to be flown back from Rhodes and Corfu, and while so many climate records are tumbling that it is hard to keep up. The Conservative Environment Network and others are trying to stiffen his spine, but Sunak appears minded to appease those on the ‘right’ who are opposed to anything green. This is both surprising but also, if you take a global and historical perspective, less so.
The UK story
The modern environment movement can roughly be dated to 1969 (1). There had been oil spills (the Torrey Canyon) and books (Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb) but the oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, where rich people lived, was the spill that broke the camel’s back. In September 1969 British Wilson Harold Wilson gave the first ever speech to a party congress that mentioned “the environment”
“First, our environment. There is a two-fold task: to remove the scars of 19th century capitalism – the derelict mills, the spoil heaps, the back-to-back houses that still disfigure so large a part of our land. At the same time we have to make sure that the second industrial revolution through which we are now passing does not bequeath a similar legacy to future generations. We must deal with the problems of pollution – of the air, of the sea, of our rivers and beaches. We must also deal with the uniquely 20th century problems of noise and congestion which will increasingly disturb, unless checked, our urban life.
Wilson then appointed one of his ministers – Tony Crosland – as a kind of Environment supremo, with a central scientific unit that was to roam across the whole of government, and set up a standing “Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution” (abolished by David Cameron in 2010). The first ever Environment White Paper was released the following May, and made a glancing reference to a possible problem with carbon dioxide buildup.
Visiting the US early the following year, Wilson proposed a new special relationship, based on environmental protection. Far from decrying this, Conservative leader Edward Heath accused Wilson of being too slow. When Heath became Prime Minister he created a huge Department of the Environment, that had some teeth to it. While “the environment” faded from the headlines thanks to the first Oil Shock, high inflation (sound familiar?) and other issues, neither Tories nor Labour backtracked. In 1979, new Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher even mentioned the greenhouse effect while in Tokyo for a G7 meeting.
She told a BBC journalist “we should also be worried about the effect of constantly burning more coal and oil because that can create a band of carbon dioxide round the world, which could itself have very damaging ecological effects.”
However, Thatcher took an obstructive line on acid rain, something the Swedes were especially exercised about, since sulphur from British coal stations was altering their lakes and rivers. It was only in 1988, after persistent lobbying from scientists like John Houghton and diplomats like Crispin Tickell that the lady was for turning – and in spectacular fashion. Her September 1988 speech to the Royal Society about the ‘experiment’ humanity was conducting in tipping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, is regarded as the starting point for modern climate politics. In a reversal of 20 years previously, it was now Labour (including a young Tony Blair) calling for more action.
Thanks to switching from coal to gas, and moving industry offshore, the UK could for a long-time boast of reducing its emissions and speak nobly of sustainable development. In 1997, Tony Blair said the UK would exceed its Kyoto target, meeting few grumbles from the Tories. In the late 2000s there was a fierce “competitive consensus” around passing a climate change act. David Cameron, trying to repair the Conservative image, had taken a trip to the Arctic and was now saying “can we have the bill please.” Very very few Conservative MPs voted against an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, and 5 year carbon budgets. Once in power, Cameron supported fracking, nuclear and opposed onshore wind and generally ‘cut the green crap’, [which has proved costly] but did not attack the Climate Change Act.
After the Paris Agreement in 2015, which the UK signed, it became clear that 80% would not be enough of a target to have the UK meet its obligations to do its part to keep warming under 2 degrees, and pressure built (including from prominent Conservative backbenchers) for a “Net Zero” by 2050 target. This was one of Theresa May’s last acts, and was enthusiastically endorsed by Labour, Boris Johnson and the like.
So what’s going wrong, and what does it mean?
Politicians tend to like targets that are far distant, round numbers like 2050. They get the glow, without the pain of upsetting either vested interests or demanding ordinary people change what they drive, what they eat, where they go. Bipartisanship is easy under those circumstances.
What we are seeing now, I believe, is a collision between what the promises were and what the immediate action has to be. Boris Johnson for a while, was able to defy gravity, but the failure of any actual spending on “Levelling Up” (recently Michael Gove returned a lot of money unspent) is a smaller version of what we are seeing here.
And, crucially, this is not unique to the United Kingdom. There have been periods of bi-partisan consensus around environmental issues in Australia (from the late 1960s to the early 1990s) and the United States. But once in power, Conservative governments have tended to prioritise “free markets” over what they label as irksome or socialistic environmental regulation. The main motor of climate denial, and framing green concerns as like a “watermelon” (Green on the outside, red on the inside) has been, historically, the United States.
One way of looking at what is happening in the Conservative Party now is that the same imported “culture war” tropes that gave us an un-evidenced “voter registration” panic and other concerns is now turning to climate policy. This is what is behind the recent Just Stop Oil action at Policy Exchange, which has received a lot of money from anonymous American sources.
The recent Uxbridge bye-election result has likely whetted the appetite of right-wing Tory strategists, seeing this as a way of “wedging” Labour (certainly Grant Shapps sees it that way) and either winning the next election by weaponising climate policy, or at the very least reducing the losses to “manageable proportions.”
Meanwhile, the emissions climb, the ice melts and the waters warm, and everyone will be holding their breath for every food harvest from here onwards.
Footnotes
I haven’t read it yet, but this new book ooks fascinating – All We Want is the Earth: Land, Labour and Movements Beyond Environmentalism By Patrick Bresnihan and Naomi Millner. The blurb says “traces a counter-history of modern environmentalism from the 1960s to the present day. It focuses on claims concerning land, labour and social reproduction arising at important moments in the history of environmentalism made by feminist, anti-colonial, Indigenous, workers’ and agrarian movements. Many of these movements did not consider themselves ‘environmental,’ and yet they offer vital ways forward in the face of escalating ecological damage and social injustice.”
Further reading
Barnett. A. 2023. Populists are feeding the climate to culture wars. The Lead, July 22.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 31, 2008 the “Strategic Review of Australian Government Climate Change Programs” was released:
“The Wilkins Review analyzes current climate change programs to determine whether they are complementary to the CPRS”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Rudd Government had set up the Wilkins Review to “house clean” and to get rid of all the other climate support schemes which were not market-based. And in exchange, we would get an economy-wide carbon price which would by magic, fix all the problems because that’s what these people genuinely believed.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are lots of people who are very smart with all of the right qualifications, who also have no idea how the world really works.
What happened next is Rudd’s wonderful Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme died. Twice. He bottled calling an election in early 2010, Julia Gillard had to clean up his mess and Australia’s emissions are high.
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.
Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 30, 1968, the top committee of the United Nations says yes to a environment conference, something the Swedes had been pushing for.
1968 July 30 Resolution 1346 (XLV) recommends that the General Assembly consider a conference on environmental problems.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was as per previous blog posts here (May 1968)and here (December 1967). Earlier in the year one of the diplomats had given a speech, which was the first mention of climate change, though it wasn’t, because he didn’t call it that.
What I think we can learn from this
Regardless of the names/terminology, we have known about this for a long time.
What happened next
In December 1968 , the UN General Assembly nodded it through. And then in 1972 the Stockholm conference happened.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, July 29, 2013, an unreadable “book” about climate change was launched in Adelaide. That sound you hear? It’s real conservatives spinning in their graves…
“Written by Bob Carter and John Spooner, Taxing Air was successfully launched by Senator Cory Bernardi (below right) at the Bert Kelly Research Centre on 29 July. [in Adelaide] Speakers at the launch included Lydia Bevege (Institute of Public Affairs), Centre Chairman Bob Day and author Prof. Bob Carter “
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
In the sleepy country town of Adelaide another schlub firing blanks in the culture war. The context is that Julia Gillard, against the expectations of her opponents, had successfully shepherded the ETS legislation through parliament in 2011. She had since been toppled by Kevin Rudd, whom she had toppled in 2010 (oh, what times they were). And an election was coming, which Tony Abbott would win. But climate, despite the hopes of Bob Carter, and the other author, was no longer the culture war dynamite that it had been in the past. Everyone was sick and tired of it. Everyone who had an opinion, had their opinion. It was not going to be changed one way or the other. And the book “Taxing the Air” is the most deliriously embarrassing hodgepodge of crap you’d ever had the misfortune to (try to) read. Connor Court press were a long way from the glory days of Ian Plimer’s Heaven & Earth in 2009.
What I think we can learn from this
Idiots gonna idiot.
What happened next
Carter died.
And the climate wars in Australia continue, courtesy Peter Dutton, chasing the wrong demographic.
Twenty years ago, on this day, July 28, 2003, in a US Senate speech, James Inhofe stated,
“I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists.” He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the 1999 Oregon Petition, as well the opinions of individual scientists that he named including John Christy, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. In his speech, Inhofe also discussed the then current Soon and Baliunas controversy, and said that “satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century.” However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the US had pulled out of Kyoto, it was prosecuting its illegal attack on Iraq, thinking that it was going to be able to have a nice, stable dependency. The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report had come out. And the Republicans were doing everything they could to confuse matters. And this sort of showmanship from James Inhofe it’s part of the ongoing culture war and belief in American exceptionalism and human exceptionalism, endless ingenuity blah, blah, blah.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are no limits to the stupidity of old white men. Especially the right wing ones, (not that the so-called left wing ones are not all that great either).
What happened next
Inhofe kept going, kept attacking, as was his wont. He kept on being one of Oklahoma’s two senators until this year (2023).
(Someone could do an article comparing Inhofe’s snowball and Morrison’s lump of coal, I guess).
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Forty three years ago, on this day, July 27, 1979, Thatcher’s cabinet pondered climate change. Sort of.
“Within the Cabinet Office it was rather airily suggested that ‘Ministers should at least be aware of what is proposed’ in terms of publication and consequences.82 But when the ministers found out there was anger. The Postmaster-General, Angus Maude, an elder statesman figure who had played a crucial role in Thatcher succeeding Heath as leader of the Conservative Party, wrote to Keith Joseph, guardian of the Thatcherite ideology, that he saw ‘no reason why the report should be published: it says very little and has no presentational advantage’.83 CAB 184/567. Maude to Joseph, 27 July 1979.”
Agar (2015)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the previous Labour Government of Jim Callaghan had set up an interdepartmental committee to look at climate. Labour had lost the May 1979 election. And it was now a question of when or rather IF the report of this interdepartmental committee should even see the light of day. Various of Thatcherites apparatchiks thought no.
What I think we can learn from this is that any given report has to jump through many hoops to even see the light of day and not be watered down to nothing. So we need to remind ourselves always, of the politics of bureaucracy and what is and isn’t published, when, why, how, and usually only find out the gory details 30 years later, when the archives opened, and a version of the truth comes out. But of course, you have to remember that even the archives are only going to view clues at the scene of the crime. They’re not the truth, because things don’t get written down, things get “weeded”…
What happened next
On Feb 11th 1980 the report got published.
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.
Forty six years ago, on this day, Wednesday July 27, 1977, a professor visited the country town of Adelaide to talk about his book…
Canberra Times, Thursday 28 July, page 7
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
11 years before yesterday’s blog post, a pro-nuclear Professor was in Adelaide giving a speech – basically part of his book tour for “Uranium On Trial.” And yes, climate change was high on his list of reasons why we should have nuclear.
The broader context is that the Ranger inquiry was ongoing in Australia around uranium mining. And as the Professor noted, the National Academy of Sciences in the US was putting the finishing touches on its two year study of climate change.
What I think we can learn from this is that even people in sleepy country towns like Adelaide had had news of climate by 1977.
What happened next
“if nothing was done”… We’re all going to die. And if you are under 40 or even under 50, you’re going to see that unfold properly in your lifetime. If you are 20 or under, my advice is to start carpe the diems right now.
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
